Parerga and Paralipomena: Short Philosophical Essays

That's French for "the ancient system," as in the ancient system of feudal privileges and the exercise of autocratic power over the peasants. The ancien regime never goes away, like vampires and dinosaur bones they are always hidden in the earth, exercising a mysterious influence. It is not paranoia to believe that the elites scheme against the common man. Inform yourself about their schemes here.

Re: Parerga and Paralipomena: Short Philosophical Essays

Postby admin » Wed Jan 31, 2018 1:16 am

CHAPTER 12: Additional Remarks on the Doctrine of the Suffering of the World

§ 148

If suffering is not the first and immediate object of our life, then our existence is the most inexpedient and inappropriate thing in the world. For it is absurd to assume that the infinite pain, which everywhere abounds in the world and springs from the want and misery essential to life, could be purposeless and purely accidental. Our susceptibility to pain is wellnigh infinite; but that to pleasure has narrow limits. It is true that each separate piece of misfortune seems to be an exception, but misfortune in general is the rule.

§ 149

Just as a brook forms no eddy so long as it meets with no obstructions, so human nature, as well as animal, is such that we do not really notice and perceive all that goes on in accordance with our will. If we were to notice it, then the reason for this would inevitably be that it did not go according to our will, but must have met with some obstacle. On the other hand, everything that obstructs, crosses, or opposes our will, and thus everything unpleasant and painful, is felt by us immediately, at once, and very plainly. Just as we do not feel the health of our whole body, but only the small spot where the shoe pinches, so we do not think of all our affairs that are going on perfectly well, but only of some insignificant trifle that annoys us. On this rests the negative nature of well-being and happiness, as opposed to the positive nature of pain, a point that I have often stressed.

Accordingly, I know of no greater absurdity than that of most metaphysical systems which declare evil to be something negative;* whereas it is precisely that which is positive and makes itself felt. On the other hand, that which is good, in other words, all happiness and satisfaction, is negative, that is, the mere elimination of a desire and the ending of a pain.

In agreement with this is the fact that, as a rule, we find pleasures far below, but pains far beyond, our expectation. Whoever wants summarily to test the assertion that the pleasure in the world outweighs the pain, or at any rate that the two balance each other, should compare the feelings of an animal that is devouring another with those of that other.

§ 150

The most effective consolation in any misfortune or suffering is to look at others who are even more unfortunate than we; and this everyone can do. But what then is the result for the whole of humanity?

We are like lambs playing in the field, while the butcher eyes them and selects first one and then another; for in our good days we do not know what calamity fate at this very moment has in store for us, sickness, persecution, impoverishment, mutilation, loss of sight, madness, death, and so on.

History shows us the life of nations and can find nothing to relate except wars and insurrections; the years of peace appear here and there only as short pauses, as intervals between the acts. And in the same way, the life of the individual is a perpetual struggle, not merely metaphorically with want and boredom but actually with others. Everywhere he finds an opponent, lives in constant conflict, and dies weapon in hand.

§ 151

Not a little is contributed to the torment of our existence by the fact that time is always pressing on us, never lets us draw breath, and is behind everyone of us like a taskmaster with a whip. Only those who have been handed over to boredom are not pressed and plagued by time.

§ 152

However, just as our body would inevitably burst if the pressure of the atmosphere were removed from it, so if the pressure of want, hardship, disappointment, and the frustration of effort were removed from the lives of men, their arrogance would rise, though not to bursting-point, yet to manifestations of the most unbridled folly and even madness. At all times, everyone indeed needs a certain amount of care, anxiety, pain, or trouble, just as a ship requires ballast in order to proceed on a straight and steady course.

Work, worry, toil, and trouble are certainly the lot of almost all throughout their lives. But if all desires were fulfilled as soon as they arose, how then would people occupy their lives and spend their time? Suppose the human race were removed to Utopia where everything grew automatically and pigeons flew about ready roasted; where everyone at once found his sweetheart and had no difficulty in keeping her; then people would die of boredom or hang themselves; or else they would fight, throttle, and murder one another and so cause themselves more suffering than is now laid upon them by nature. Thus for such a race, no other scene, no other existence, is suitable.

§ 153

On account of the negative nature of well-being and pleasure as distinct from the positive nature of pain, a fact to which I just now drew the reader's attention, the happiness of any given life is to be measured not by its joys and pleasures, but by the absence of sorrow and suffering, of that which is positive. But then the lot of animals appears to be more bearable than that of man. We will consider the two somewhat more closely.

However varied the forms in which man's happiness and unhappiness appear and impel him to pursuit or escape, the material basis of all this is nevertheless physical pleasure or pain. This basis is very restricted, namely health, nourishment, protection from wet and cold, and sexual satisfaction, or else the want of these things. Consequently, in real physical pleasure man has no more than the animal, except in so far as his more highly developed nervous system enhances the susceptibility to every pleasure but also to every pain as well. But how very much stronger are the emotions stirred in him than those aroused in the animal! How incomparably more deeply and powerfully are his feelings excited! and ultimately only to arrive at the same result, namely health, nourishment, clothing, and so on.

This arises primarily from the fact that, with him, everything is powerfully enhanced by his thinking of the absent and the future, whereby anxiety, fear, and hope really come into existence for the first time. But then these press much more heavily on him than can the present reality of pleasures or pains, to which the animal is confined. Thus the animal lacks reflection, that condenser of pleasures and pains which, therefore, cannot be accumulated, as happens in the case of man by means of his memory and foresight. On the contrary, with the animal, the suffering of the present moment always remains, even when this again recurs innumerable times, merely the suffering of the present moment as on the first occasion, and cannot be accumulated. Hence the enviable tranquillity and placidity of animals. On the other hand, by means of reflection and everything connected therewith, there is developed in man from those same elements of pleasure and pain which he has in common with the animal, an enhancement of susceptibility to happiness and unhappiness which is capable of leading to momentary, and sometimes even fatal, ecstasy or else to the depths of despair and suicide. More closely considered, things seem to take the following course. In order to heighten his pleasure, man deliberately increases his needs that were originally only a little more difficult to satisfy than those of the animal; hence luxury, delicacies, tobacco, opium, alcoholic liquors, pomp, display, and all that goes with this. Then in addition, in consequence of reflection, there is open to man alone a source of pleasure, and of pain as well, a source that gives him an excessive amount of trouble, in fact almost more than is given by all the others. I refer to ambition and the feeling of honour and shame, in plain words, what he thinks of other people's opinion of him. Now in a thousand different and often strange forms this becomes the goal of almost all his efforts that go beyond physical pleasure or pain. It is true that he certainly has over the animal the advantage of really intellectual pleasures which admit of many degrees from the most ingenuous trifling or conversation up to the highest achievements of the mind. But as a counterweight to this on the side of suffering, boredom appears in man which is unknown to the animal, at any rate in the natural state, but which slightly attacks the most intelligent only if they are domesticated, whereas with man it becomes a real scourge. We see it in that host of miserable wretches who have always been concerned over filling their purses but never their heads, and for whom their very wealth now becomes a punishment by delivering them into the hands of tormenting boredom. To escape from this, they now rush about in all directions and travel here, there, and everywhere. No sooner do they arrive at a place, than they anxiously inquire about its amusements and clubs, just as does a poor man about its sources of assistance; for, of course, want and boredom are the two poles of human life. Finally, I have to mention that, in the case of man, there is associated with sexual satisfaction an obstinate selection, peculiar to him alone, which rises sometimes to a more or less passionate love and to which I have devoted a lengthy chapter in the second volume of my chief work. In this way, it becomes for him a source of much suffering and little pleasure.

Meanwhile, it is remarkable how, through the addition of thought which the animal lacks, so lofty and vast a structure of human happiness and unhappiness is raised on the same narrow basis of joys and sorrows which the animal also has. With reference to this, his feelings are exposed to such violent emotions, passions, and shocks, that their stamp can be read in the permanent lines on his face; and yet in the end and in reality, it is only a question of the same things which even the animal obtains, and indeed with incomparably less expenditure of emotion and distress. But through all this, the measure of pain increases in man much more than that of pleasure and is now in a special way very greatly enhanced by the fact that death is actually known to him. On the other hand, the animal runs away from death merely instinctively, without really knowing it and thus without ever actually coming face to face with it, as does man who always has before him this prospect. And so although only a few animals die a natural death, most of them get only just enough time to propagate their species and then, if not earlier, become the prey of some other animal. On the other hand, man alone in his species has managed to make the so-called natural death the rule to which there are, however, important exceptions. Yet in spite of all this, the animals still have the advantage, for the reason I have given. Moreover, man reaches his really natural term of life just as rarely as do the animals, because his unnatural way of living, his struggles and passions, and the degeneration of the race resulting therefrom rarely enable him to succeed in this.

Animals are much more satisfied than we by mere existence; the plant is wholly satisfied, man according to the degree of his dullness. Consequently, the animal's life contains less suffering, but also less pleasure, than man's. This is due primarily to the fact that it remains free from care and anxiety together with their torment, on the one hand, but is also without real hope, on the other. And so it does not participate in that anticipation of a joyful future through ideas together with the delightful phantasmagoria, that source of most of our joys and pleasures, which accompanies those ideas and is given in addition by the imagination; consequently in this sense it is without hope. It is both these because its consciousness is restricted to what is intuitively perceived and so to the present moment. Thus only in reference to objects that already exist at this moment in intuitive perception, docs the animal have an extremely short fear and hope; whereas man's consciousness has an intellectual horizon that embraces the whole of life and even goes beyond this. But in consequence of this, animals, when compared with us, seem to be really wise in one respect, namely in their calm and undisturbed enjoyment of the present moment. The animal is the embodiment of the present; the obvious peace of mind which it thus shares frequently puts us to shame with our often restless and dissatisfied state that comes from thoughts and cares. And even those pleasures of hope and anticipation we have just been discussing are not to be had for nothing. Thus what a man enjoys in advance, through hoping and expecting a satisfaction, afterwards detracts from the actual enjoyment of this, since the thing itself then satisfies him by so much the less. The animal, on the other hand, remains free from such pleasure in advance as well as from that deduction of pleasure, and therefore enjoys the real and present thing itself, whole and undiminished. In the same way, evils press on the animal merely with their own actual weight, whereas for us they are often increased tenfold by fear and foresight, [x]. [1]

It is just this complete absorption in the present moment, peculiar to animals, which contributes so much to the pleasure we derive from our domestic pets. They are the present moment personified and, to a certain extent, make us feel the value of every unburdened and unclouded hour, whereas with our thoughts we usually pass it over and leave it unheeded. But the abovementioned capacity of animals to be more satisfied than we by mere existence is abused by egotistic and heartless man, and is often exploited to such an extent that he allows them absolutely nothing but bare existence. For example, the bird that is organized to roam through half the world, is confined to a cubic foot of space where it slowly pines to death and cries; for

l'uccello nella gabbia
Canta non di piacre, ma di rabbia, [2]


and the highly intelligent dog, man's truest and most faithful friend, is put on a chain by him! Never do I see such a dog without feelings of the deepest sympathy for him and of profound indignation against his master. I think with satisfaction of a case, reported some years ago in The Times, where Lord - kept a large dog on a chain. One day as he was walking through the yard, he took it into his head to go and pat the dog, whereupon the animal tore his arm open from top to bottom, and quite right too! What he meant by this was: 'You are not my master, but my devil who makes a hell of my brief existence!' May this happen to all who chain up dogs.

§ 154

If the result of the foregoing remarks is that the enhanced power of knowledge renders the life of man more woe-begone than that of the animal, we can reduce this to a universal law and thereby obtain a much wider view.

In itself, knowledge is always painless. Pain concerns the will alone and consists in checking, hindering, or thwarting this; yet an additional requirement is that this checking be accompanied by knowledge. Thus just as light illuminates space only when objects exist to reflect it; just as a tone requires resonance and sound generally becomes audible at a distance only through waves of the vibrating air that break on hard bodies so that its effect is strikingly feeble on isolated mountain tops and a song in the open produces little effect; so also in the same way must the checking of the will, in order to be felt as pain, be accompanied by knowledge which in itself, however, is a stranger to all pain.

Thus physical pain is already conditioned by nerves and their connection with the brain; and so an injury to a limb is not felt if its nerves leading to the brain are severed, or when the brain itself loses its powers through chloroform. For the very same reason, we consider that, as soon as consciousness is extinguished when a person is dying, all subsequent convulsions are painless. It follows as a matter of course that mental pain is conditioned by knowledge; and that it increases with the degree of knowledge can easily be seen, and moreover in the above remarks as also in my chief work, volume i, § 56. We can, therefore, figuratively express the whole relationship by saying that the will is the string, its thwarting or checking the vibration thereof, knowledge the sounding-board, and pain the tone.

Now according to this, only that which is inorganic and also the plant are incapable of feeling pain, however often the will may be checked in both. On the other hand, every animal, even an infusorian, feels pain because knowledge, however imperfect, is the true characteristic of animal existence. As knowledge rises on the animal scale, so too does susceptibility to pain. It is, therefore, still extremely small in the case of the lowest animals; thus, for example, insects still go on eating when the back part of the body is nearly torn off and hangs by a mere thread of gut. But even in the highest animals, because of an absence of concepts and thought, pain is nothing like that which is suffered by man. Even the susceptibility to pain could reach its highest point only when, by virtue of our faculty of reason and its reflectiveness, there exists also the possibility of denying the will. For without that possibility, such susceptibility would have been purposeless cruelty.

§ 155

In early youth we sit before the impending course of our life like children at the theatre before the curtain is raised, who sit there in happy and excited expectation of the things that are to come. It is a blessing that we do not know what will actually come. For to the man who knows, the children may at times appear to be like innocent delinquents who are condemned not to death, it is true, but to life and have not yet grasped the purport of their sentence. Nevertheless everyone wants to reach old age and thus to a state of life, whereof it may be said: 'It is bad today and every day it will get worse, until the worst of all happens.'

§ 156

If we picture to ourselves roughly as far as we can the sum total of misery, pain, and suffering of every kind on which the sun shines in its course, we shall admit that it would have been much better if it had been just as impossible for the sun to produce the phenomenon of life on earth as on the moon, and the surface of the earth, like that of the moon, had still been in a crystalline state.

We can also regard our life as a uselessly disturbing episode in the blissful repose of nothingness. At all events even the man who has fared tolerably well, becomes more clearly aware, the longer he lives, that life on the whole is a disappointment, nay a cheat,3 in other words, bears the character of a great mystification or even a fraud. When two men who were friends in their youth meet again after the separation of a lifetime, the feeling uppermost in their minds when they see each other, in that it recalls old times, is one of complete disappointment with the whole of life. In former years under the rosy sunrise of their youth, life seemed to them so fair in prospect; it made so many promises and has kept so few. So definitely uppermost is this feeling when they meet that they do not even deem it necessary to express it in words, but both tacitly assume it and proceed to talk on that basis.

Whoever lives two or three generations, feels like the spectator who, during the fair, sees the performances of all kinds of jugglers and, if he remains seated in the booth, sees them repeated two or three times. As the tricks were meant only for one performance, they no longer make any impression after the illusion and novelty have vanished.

We should be driven crazy if we contemplated the lavish and excessive arrangements, the countless flaming fixed stars in infinite space which have nothing to do but illuminate worlds, such being the scene of misery and desolation and, in the luckiest case, yielding nothing but boredom-at any rate to judge from the specimen with which we are familiar.

No one is to be greatly envied, but many thousands are to be greatly pitied.

Life is a task to be worked off; in this sense defunctus [4] is a fine expression.

Let us for a moment imagine that the act of procreation were not a necessity or accompanied by intense pleasure, but a matter of pure rational deliberation; could then the human race really continue to exist? Would not everyone rather feel so much sympathy for the coming generation that he would prefer to spare it the burden of existence, or at any rate would not like to assume in cold blood the responsibility of imposing on it such a burden?

The world is just a hell and in it human beings are the tortured souls on the one hand, and the devils on the other.

I suppose I shall have to be told again that my philosophy is cheerless and comfortless simply because I tell the truth, whereas people want to hear that the Lord has made all things very well. Go to your churches and leave us philosophers in peace! At any rate, do not demand that they should cut their doctrines according to your pattern! This is done by knaves and philosophasters from whom you can order whatever doctrines you like.*

Brahma produces the world through a kind of original sin, but himself remains in it to atone for this until he has redeemed himself from it. This is quite a good idea! In Buddhism the world comes into being in consequence of an inexplicable disturbance (after a long period of calm) in the crystal clearness of the blessed and penitentially obtained state of Nirvana and hence through a kind of fatality which, however, is to be understood ultimately in a moral sense; although the matter has its exact analogue and corresponding picture in physics, in the inexplicable arising of a primordial nebula, whence a sun is formed. Accordingly, in consequence of moral lapses, it also gradually becomes physically worse and worse until it assumes its present sorry state. An excellent idea! To the Greeks the world and the gods were the work of an unfathomable necessity; this is fairly reasonable in so far as it satisfies us for the time being. Ormuzd lives in conflict with Ahriman; this seems not unreasonable. But that a God Jehovah creates this world of misery and affliction animi causa [5] and de gaiete de coeur, [6] and then applauds himself with a [x], [7] this is something intolerable. And so in this respect, we see the religion of the Jews occupy the lowest place among the dogmas of the civilized world, which is wholly in keeping with the fact that it is also the only religion that has absolutely no doctrine of immortality, nor has it even any trace thereof. (See vol. i of this work, pages 125-26.)

Even if Leibniz's demonstration were correct, that of all possible worlds this is nevertheless always the best, we should still not have a Theodicee. For the Creator has created indeed not merely the world, but also the possibility itself; accordingly, he should have arranged this with a view to its admitting of a better world.

But generally, such a view of the world as the successful work of an all-wise, all-benevolent, and moreover almighty Being is too flagrantly contradicted by the misery and wretchedness that fill the world on the one hand, and by the obvious imperfection and even burlesque distortion of the most perfect of its phenomena on the other; I refer to the human phenomenon. Here is to be found a dissonance that can never be resolved. On the other hand, these very instances will agree with, and serve as a proof of, our argument if we look upon the world as the work of our own guilt and consequently as something that it were better never to have been. Whereas on the first assumption human beings become a bitter indictment against the Creator and provide material for sarcasm, they appear on the second as a denunciation of our own true nature and will, which is calculated to humble us. For they lead us to the view that we, as the offspring of dissolute fathers, have come into the world already burdened with guilt and that, only because we have to be continually working off this debt, does our existence prove to be so wretched and have death as its finale. Nothing is more certain than that, speaking generally, it is the great sin of the world which produces the many and great sufferings of the world; and here I refer not to the physically empirical connection, but to the metaphysical. According to this view, it is only the story of the Fall of Man that reconciles me to the Old Testament. In fact, in my eyes, it is the only metaphysical truth that appears in the book, although it is clothed in allegory. For to nothing does our existence bear so close a resemblance as to the consequence of a false step and guilty lust. I cannot refrain from recommending to the thoughtful reader a popular, but exceedingly profound, dissertation on this subject by Claudius which brings to light the essentially pessimistic spirit of Christianity and appears in the fourth part of the Wandsbecker Bote with the title' Cursed be the ground for thy sake.'

To have always in hand a sure compass for guiding us in life and enabling us always to view this in the right light without ever going astray, nothing is more suitable than to accustom ourselves to regard this world as a place of penance and hence a penal colony, so to speak, an [x], [8] as it was called even by the oldest philosophers (according to Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, lib. III, c. 3, p. 399). Among the Christian Fathers Origen expressed it thus with commendable boldness. (See Augustine, De civitate dei, lib. XI, c. 23.) This view of the world also finds its theoretical and objective justification not merely in my philosophy, but in the wisdom of all ages, in Brahmanism, Buddhism,* Empedocles, and Pythagoras. Cicero also mentions (Fragmenta de philosophia, vol. xii, p. 3I6, ed. Bip.) that it was taught by ancient sages and at the initiation into the Mysteries, nos ob aliqua scelera suscepta in vita superiore, poenarum luendarum causa natos esse. [9] Vanini, whom it was easier to burn that to refute, gives the strongest expression to this by saying: Tot tantisque homo repletus miseriis, ut si Christianae religioni non repugnaret, dicere auderem: si daemones dantur, ipsi, in hominum corpora transmigrantes, sceleris poenas luunt. [10] (De admirandis naturae arcanis, Dial. 50, p. 353.) But even in genuine Christianity which is properly understood, our existence is regarded as the consequence of a guilt, a false step. If we have acquired that habit, we shall adjust our expectations from life to suit the occasion and accordingly no longer regard as unexpected and abnormal its troubles, vexations, sufferings, worries, and misery, great and small. On the contrary, we shall find such things to be quite in order, well knowing that here everyone is punished for his existence and indeed each in his own way.* For one of the evils of a penitentiary is also the society we meet there. What this is like will be known by anyone who is worthy of a better society without my telling him. A fine nature, as well as a genius, may sometimes feel in this world like a noble state-prisoner in the galleys among common criminals; and they, like him, will therefore attempt to isolate themselves. Generally speaking, however, the above-mentioned way of looking at things will enable us to regard without surprise and certainly without indignation the so-called imperfections, that is, the wretched and contemptible nature of most men both morally and intellectually, which is accordingly stamped on their faces. For we shall always remember where we are and consequently look on everyone primarily as a being who exists only as a result of his sinfulness and whose life is the atonement for the guilt of his birth. It is just this that Christianity calls the sinful nature of man. It is, therefore, the basis of the beings whom we meet in this world as our fellows. Moreover, in consequence of the constitution of the world, they are almost all, more or less, in a state of suffering and dissatisfaction which is not calculated to make them more sympathetic and amiable. Finally, there is the fact that, in almost all cases, their intellect is barely sufficient for the service of their will. Accordingly, we have to regulate our claims on the society of this world. Whoever keeps firmly to this point of view, might call the social impulse a pernicious tendency.

In fact, the conviction that the world and thus also man is something that really ought not to be, is calculated to fill us with forbearance towards one another; for what can we expect from beings in such a predicament? In fact from this point of view, it might occur to us that the really proper address between one man and another should be, instead of Sir, Monsieur, and so on, Leidensgifahrte, socii malorum, compagnon de miseres, my fellow-sufferer. However strange this may sound, it accords with the facts, puts the other man in the most correct light, and reminds us of that most necessary thing, tolerance, patience, forbearance, and love of one's neighbour, which everyone needs and each of us, therefore, owes to another.

§ 156a

The characteristic of the things of this world and especially of the world of men is not exactly imperfection, as has often been said, but rather distortion, in everything, in what is moral, intellectual, or physical.

The excuse, sometimes made for many a vice, namely 'that it is natural to man', is by no means adequate, but the proper rejoinder should be: 'just because it is bad, it is natural; and just because it is natural it is bad.' To understand this aright, we must have grasped the meaning of the doctrine of original sin.

When judging a human individual, we should always keep to the point of view that the basis of such is something that ought not to be at all, something sinful, perverse, and absurd, that which has been understood as original sin, that on account of which he is doomed to die. This fundamentally bad nature is indeed characterized by the fact that no one can bear to be closely scrutinized. What can we expect from such a being? If, therefore, we start from this fact, we shall judge him more indulgently; we shall not be surprised when the devils lurking in him bestir themselves and peep out, and we shall be better able to appreciate any good point that has nevertheless been found in him, whether this be a consequence of his intellect or of anything else. In the second place, we should also be mindful of his position and remember that life is essentially a condition of want, distress, and often misery, where everyone has to fight and struggle for his existence and therefore cannot always put on a pleasant face. If, on the contrary, man were that which all optimistic religions and philosophies would like to make him, namely the work or even the incarnation of a God, in fact a being that in every sense ought to be and to be as he is, what a totally different effect would inevitably be produced by the first sight, the closer acquaintance, and the continued intercourse with every human being from that which is now produced!

Pardon's the word to all (Cymbeline, Act v, Sc. 5). We should treat with indulgence every human folly, failing, and vice, bearing in mind that what we have before us are simply our own follies, failings, and vices. For they are just the failings of mankind to which we also belong; accordingly, we have in ourselves all its failings, and so those at which we are just now indignant, merely because they do not appear in us at this particular moment. Thus they are not on the surface, but lie deep down within us and will come up and show themselves on the first occasion, just as we see them in others; although one failing is conspicuous in one man and another in another, and the sum total of all bad qualities is undoubtedly very much greater in one man than in another. For the difference in individualities is incalculably great.

_______________

Notes:

 * Leibniz is particularly strong on this point and endeavours (Thiodicee, § 153)  to strengthen his case by a palpable and pitiable sophism.
 
1 'The dread of evil'.

2 ['Ill is the humour of the bird in a cage;
He sings not for pleasure, but only from rage.']

3 [Schopenhauer's own words.]

* To put professors of philosophy out of countenance with their orthodox optimism is as easy as it is agreeable.

4 ['One who has finished with the business of life'.]

5 ['Because he feels inclined to'.]

6 ['out of sheer wantonness'.]

7 [' (And God saw) every thing (that he had made, and, behold it) was very good.' (Genesis I: 31.)]

* Nothing can be more conducive to patience in life and to a placid endurance of men and evils than a Buddhist reminder of this kind: 'This is Samsara, the world of lust and craving and thus of birth, disease, old age, and death; it is a world that ought not to be. And this is here the population of Samsara. Therefore what better things can you expect?' I would like to prescribe that everyone repeat this four times a day, fully conscious of what he is saying.

8 ['Penitentiary'.]

9 ['That, on account of definite mistakes made in a previous life, we are born to pay the penalty'.]

* The correct standard for judging any man is to remember that he is really a being who should not exist at all, but who is atoning for his existence through many different forms of suffering and through death. What can we expect from such a being? We atone for our birth first by living and secondly by dying. This is also allegorized by original sin.

10 ['Man is so full of many great afflictions that, if it were not repugnant to the Christian religion, I would venture to assert that, if there are demons, they are cast into human bodies and pay the penalties for their sins.']
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36180
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Parerga and Paralipomena: Short Philosophical Essays

Postby admin » Wed Jan 31, 2018 1:28 am

CHAPTER 13: On Suicide

§ 157

As far as I can see, it is only the monotheistic, and hence Jewish, religions whose followers regard suicide as a crime. This is the more surprising since neither in the Old Testament nor in the New is there to be found any prohibition or even merely a definite condemnation of suicide. Teachers of religion have, therefore, to base their objection to suicide on their own philosophical grounds; but their arguments are in such a bad way that they try to make up for what these lack in strength by the vigorous expressions of their abhorrence and thus by being abusive. We then of necessity hear that suicide is the greatest cowardice, that it is possible only in madness, and such like absurdities; or else the wholly meaningless phrase that suicide is 'wrong', whereas there is obviously nothing in the world over which every man has such an indisputable right as his own person and life. (Cf. § 121.) As I have said, suicide is even accounted a crime and connected with this, especially in vulgar bigoted England, are an ignominious burial and the confiscation of legacies; for which reason a jury almost invariably brings in a verdict of insanity. First of all, we should allow moral feeling to decide the matter and compare the impression made on us by the news that an acquaintance of ours had committed a crime, such as murder, cruelty, fraud, or theft, with that made by the report of his voluntary death. Whereas the former report arouses lively indignation, the greatest resentment, and a demand for punishment or revenge, the latter will move us to sorrow and sympathy often mingled with a certain admiration for his courage rather than with the moral condemnation that accompanies a bad action. Who has not had acquaintances, friends, and relations who have voluntarily departed from the world? And should we all regard these with abhorrence as criminals? Nego ac pernego! [1] I am rather of the opinion that the clergy should be challenged once and for all to tell us with what right they stigmatize as a crime an action that has been committed by many who were honoured and beloved by us; for they do so from the pulpit and in their writings without being able to point to any biblical authority and in fact without having any valid philosophical arguments, and they refuse an honourable burial to those who voluntarily depart from the world. But here it should be stipulated that we want reasons and shall not accept in their place mere empty phrases or words of abuse. If criminal law condemns suicide, that is not an ecclesiastically valid reason and is, moreover, definitely ridiculous; for what punishment can frighten the man who seeks death? If we punish the attempt to commit suicide, then we are simply punishing the want of skill whereby it failed.

Even the ancients were far from regarding the matter in that light. Pliny (Historia naturalis, lib. XXVIII, c. I; vol. iv, p. 351 ed. Bip.) says: Vitam quidem non adeo expetendam censemus, ut quoque modo trahenda sit. Quisquis es talis, aeque moriere, etiam cum obscoenus vixeris, aut nefandus. Quapropter hoc primum quisque in remediis animi sui habeat: ex omnibus bonis, quae homini tribuit natura, nullum melius esse tempestiva morte: idqlle in ea optimum, quod illam sibi quisque praestare poterit. [2] He also says (lib. II, c. 7; vol. i, p. 125): ne Deum quidem posse omnia. Namque nec sibi potest mortem consciscere, si velit, quod homini dedit optimum in tantis vitae poenis etc. [3] In Massilia and on the island of Ceos, the cup of hemlock was even publicly handed to the man who could state convincing reasons for quitting life (Valerius Maximus, lib. II, c. 6, §§ 7 and 8).* And how many heroes and sages of antiquity have not ended their lives by a voluntary death! It is true that Aristotle says (Nicomachean Ethics, v. 15) suicide is a wrong against the State, although not against one's own person. Yet in his exposition of the ethics of the Peripatetics, Stobaeus quotes the sentence (Eclogae ethicae, lib. II, c. 7, vol. iii, p. 286): [x] (Vitam autem relinquendam esse bonis in nimiis quidem miseriis, pravis vero in nimium quoque secundis). [4] And similarly on page 312: [x] etc. (Ideoque et uxorem ducturum, et liberos procreaturum, et ad civitatem accessurum etc. atque omnino virtutem colendo tum vitam servaturum, tum iterum, cogente necessitate, relicturum etc.) [5]

We find suicide extolled as a noble and heroic action even by the Stoics, as can be proved from hundreds of passages, the most vigorous of which are from Seneca. Further with the Hindus, it is well known that suicide often occurs as a religious action, particularly as widow-burning, self-destruction under the wheels of the Juggernaut Car, self-sacrifice to the crocodiles of the Ganges or the sacred temple-tanks, and otherwise. It is precisely the same at the theatre, that mirror of life; for example, in the celebrated Chinese play L'Orphelin de la Chine (translated by Saint-Julien, 1834), we see almost all the noble characters end in suicide without there being any suggestion or its occurring to the spectator that they had committed a crime. In fact, at bottom on our own stage it is not otherwise, for example, Palmira in Mahomet, Mortimer in Maria Stuart, Othello, Countess Terzky. And Sophocles says:

[x]. [6]


Is Hamlet's monologue the meditation of a crime? He merely states that, if we were sure of being absolutely annihilated by death, we would undoubtedly choose it in view of the state of the world. 'Ay, there's the rub.' [7] But the reasons against suicide which are advanced by the clergy of the monotheistic, I.e. Jewish, religions and by the philosophers who accommodate themselves to them, are feeble sophisms which can easily be refuted. (See my essay On the Basis of Ethics, § 5.) The most thorough refutation of them has been furnished by Burne in his essay On Suicide, which first appeared after his death and was at once suppressed in England by the disgraceful bigotry and scandalous power of the parsons. And so only a few copies were sold secretly and at a high price, and for the preservation of this and another essay by that great man we are indebted to the Basel reprint: Essays on Suicide and the Immortality of the Soul, by the late David Burne, Basel, 1799, sold by James Decker, 124 pp., 8vo. But that a purely philosophical essay, coldly and rationally refuting the current reasons against suicide and coming from one of the leading thinkers and authors of England, had to be secretly smuggled through that country like a forbidden thing until it found refuge abroad, brings great discredit on the English nation. At the same time, it shows what kind of a conscience the Church has on this point. I have expounded in my chief work, volume one, § 69, the only valid moral reason against suicide. It lies in the fact that suicide is opposed to the attainment of the highest moral goal since it substitutes for the real salvation from this world of woe and misery one that is merely apparent. But it is still a very long way from this aberration to a crime, such as the Christian clergy would like to stamp it.

In its innermost core, Christianity bears the truth that suffering (the Cross) is the real purpose of life; and therefore as suicide opposes such purpose, Christianity rejects it, whereas antiquity, from a lower point of view, approved and even honoured it. That reason against suicide is, however, ascetic and therefore applies only to an ethical standpoint much higher than that which European moral philosophers have ever occupied. But if we descend from that very high point, there is no longer any valid moral reason for condemning suicide. It seems, therefore, that the extraordinarily lively zeal of the clergy of the monotheistic religions against suicide,* a zeal that is not supported either by the Bible or by valid grounds, must have a hidden foundation. Might it not be that the voluntary giving up of life is a poor compliment to him who said [x]? [8] So once again, it is the customary and orthodox optimism of these religions which denounces suicide in order not to be denounced by it.

§ 158

On the whole, we shall find that, as soon as a point is reached where the terrors of life outweigh those of death, man puts an end to his life. The resistance of the latter is nevertheless considerable; they stand, so to speak, as guardians at the gate of exit. Perhaps there is no one alive who would not already have made an end of his life if such an end were something purely negative, a sudden cessation of existence. But it is something positive, namely the destruction of the body, and this frightens people back just because the body is the phenomenon of the will-to-live.

However, the struggle with those guardians is not, as a rule, so difficult as it may seem from a distance and indeed in consequence of the antagonism between mental and bodily sufferings. Thus if physically we suffer very severely or continuously, we become indifferent to all other troubles; only our recovery is uppermost in our thoughts. In the same way, severe mental suffering makes us indifferent to physical; we treat it with contempt. In fact, if physical suffering should predominate, this is a wholesome diversion, a pause in the mental suffering. It is precisely this that makes suicide easier, since the physical pain associated with this loses all importance in the eyes of one who is tormented by an excessive amount of mental suffering. This becomes particularly noticeable in those who are driven to suicide through a purely morbid deep depression. It does not cost such men any self-restraint at all; they need not make a resolute rush at it, but, as soon as the warder appointed to look after them leaves them for two minutes, they quickly put an end to their life.

§ 159

If in heavy horrible dreams anxiety reaches its highest degree, it causes us to wake up, whereby all those monstrous horrors of the night vanish. The same thing happens in the dream of life when the highest degree of anxiety forces us to break it off.

§ 160

Suicide can also be regarded as an experiment, a question we put to nature and try to make her answer, namely what change the existence and knowledge of man undergo through death. But it is an awkward experiment, for it abolishes the identity of the consciousness that would have to listen to the answer.

_______________

Notes:

1 ['I say no, certainly not.']
 
* On the island of Ceos it was the custom for old people to die voluntarily. See Valerius Maximus, lib. II, c. 6. Heraclides Ponticus, Fragmenta de rebus publicis, IX. Aelianus, Variae historiae, III. 37. Strabo, lib. X, c. 5, § 6, ed. Kramer.

2 ['We are of the opinion that one should not love life so much as to prolong it at all costs. Whoever you may be, you who desire this will likewise die, even though you may have lived a (good or) vicious and criminal life. Therefore may everyone above all keep as a remedy for his soul the fact that, of all the blessings conferred by nature on man, none is better than an opportune death; and the best thing is that everyone can procure for himself such a death.']

3 ['Not even God is capable of everything. For even if he wanted to, he cannot come to a decision about his own death. Yet with so much suffering in life, such a death is the best gift he has granted to man.']

4 ['That the good must quit life when their misfortune is too great, but the bad also when their good fortune is too great'.]

5 ['Therefore a man must marry, have children, devote himself to the service of the State, and generally preserve his life in the cultivation of skill and ability, but again quit it under the compulsion of necessity.']

6 ['God will release me when I myself wish it.' (Not Sophocles, but Euripides, Bacchae, 498.)]

7 [Hamlet, Act III, Sc. I.]

* On this point all are unanimous. According to Rousseau, Oeuvres, vol. IV, p.  275, Augustine and Lactantius were the first to declare suicide to be a sin, but took  their argument from Plato's Phaedo (139), since shown to be as trite as it is utterly  groundless, that we are on duty or are slaves of the gods.

8 ['(And God saw) every thing (that he had made, and behold, it) was very good.' (Genesis 1: 31.)]
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36180
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Parerga and Paralipomena: Short Philosophical Essays

Postby admin » Wed Jan 31, 2018 10:10 pm

CHAPTER 14: Additional Remarks on the Doctrine of the Affirmation and Denial of the Will-to-Live

§ 161

To a certain extent, it can be seen a priori, vulgo it is self-evident, that that which now produces the phenomenon of the world must also be capable of not doing this and consequently of remaining at rest; in other words, that to the present [x] there must also be a [x]. [1] Now if the former is the phenomenon of the will-to-live, the latter will be that of the will-not-to- live. Essentially this will also be the same as the magnum Sakhepat [2] of the Veda teaching (in the Oupnekhat, vol. i, p. 163), as the Nirvana of the Buddhists, and also as the [x] [3] of the Neoplatonists.

Contrary to certain silly objections, I observe that the denial if the will-to-live does not in any way assert the annihilation of a substance, but the mere act of not-willing; that which hitherto willed no longer wills. As we know this being, this essence, the will, as thing-in-itself merely in and through the act of willing, we are incapable of saying or comprehending what it still is or does after it has given up that act. And so for us who are the phenomenon of willing, this denial is a passing over into nothing.

The affirmation and denial if the will-to-live is a mere Velle et Nolle. [4] The subject of these two acts is one and the same and consequently, as such, is not annihilated either by the one act or by the other. Its velle manifests itself in this world of intuitive perception which is for that very reason the phenomenon of its own thing-in-itself. On the other hand, we know of no phenomenon of nolle except merely that of its appearance and in fact in the individual who already belongs originally to the phenomenon of velle. And so as long as the individual exists, we still see nolle always in conflict with velle. If the individual has come to an end and nolle has triumphed in him, this has been a pure declaration of nolle (this is the meaning of the Papal Canonization). Of this we can only say that its phenomenon cannot be that of velle; but we do not know whether it appears at all, that is, whether it maintains a secondary existence for an intellect which it would first have to produce. Since we know the intellect only as an organ of the will in the affirmation thereof, we do not see why, after the suppression of such affirmation, it should produce the intellect; and we cannot make any statement about the subject thereof, for we have known this positively only in the opposite act, the velle, as the thing-in-itself of its phenomenal world.

§ 162

Between the ethics of the Greeks and that of the Hindus there is a striking contrast. The former (although with the exception of Plato) has for its object the ability to lead a happy life, vita beata; the latter, on the other hand, the liberation and salvation from life generally, as is directly expressed in the very first sentence of the Samkhya Karika.

We shall obtain a contrast which is akin to this and is more marked and vivid, if in the gallery at Florence we contemplate the fine antique sarcophagus whose reliefs depict the whole series of ceremonies of a wedding from the first proposal to where Hymen's torch lights the way to the torus, and then picture next to it the Christian coffin, draped in black as a sign of mourning and with the crucifix on top. The contrast is highly significant. In opposite ways both attempt to comfort and console for death, and both are right. The one expresses the affirmation of the will-to-live to which life remains sure and certain throughout all time, however rapidly the forms may change. The other expresses through the symbols of suffering and death the denial of the will-to-live and salvation from a world where death and the devil reign; donec voluntas fiat noluntas. [5]

Between the spirit of Graeco-Roman paganism and that of Christianity is the proper contrast of the affirmation and denial of the will-to-live, according to which, in the last resort, Christianity is fundamentally right.

§ 163

My ethics is related to all the ethical systems of European philosophy as the New Testament to the Old, according to the ecclesiastical conception of this relation. Thus the Old Testament puts man under the authority of the law which, however, does not lead to salvation. The New Testament, on the other hand, declares the law to be inadequate, in fact repudiates it (e.g. Romans 7, Galatians 2 and 3). On the contrary, it preaches the kingdom of grace which is attained by faith, love of one's neighbour, and complete denial of oneself; this is the path to salvation from evil and the world. For in spite of all protestant-rationalistic distortions and misrepresentations, the ascetic spirit is assuredly and quite properly the soul of the New Testament. But this is just the denial of the will-to-live; and that transition from the Old Testament to the New, from the dominion of the law to that of faith, from justification through works to salvation through the Mediator, from the dominion of sin and death to eternal life in Christ, signifies, sensu proprio, the transition from the merely moral virtues to the denial of the will-to-live. Now all the philosophical systems of ethics prior to mine have kept to the spirit of the Old Testament with their absolute (i.e. dispensing with ground as well as goal) moral law and all their moral commandments and prohibitions to which the commanding Jehovah is secretly added in thought, different as their forms and descriptions of the matter may prove to be. My ethics, on the other hand, has ground, basis, purpose, and goal; it first demonstrates theoretically the metaphysical ground of justice and loving kindness and then indicates the goal to which these must ultimately lead if they are completely carried out. At the same time, it frankly and sincerely admits the abominable nature of the world and points to the denial of the will as the path to redemption therefrom. It is, accordingly, actually in the spirit of the New Testament, whereas all the others are in that of the Old and thus theoretically amount to mere Judaism (plain despotic theism). In this sense, my teaching could be called Christian philosophy proper, paradoxical as this may seem to those who do not go to the root of the matter, but stick merely to the surface.

§ 164

Whoever is capable of thinking somewhat more deeply will soon see that human desires cannot begin to be sinful first at that point where, in their individual tendencies, they accidentally cross one another and cause evil from one quarter and malice from another. On the contrary, he will see that, if this is so, they must already be sinful and bad originally and according to their true nature and consequently that the entire will-to-live itself is detestable. Indeed, all the misery and horrors whereof the world is full are merely the necessary result of all the characters in which the will-to-live objectifies itself under circumstances which occur on the unbroken chain of necessity and furnish the characters with motives. Those horrors and misery are, therefore, the mere commentary to the affirmation of the will-to-live. (Cf. Theologia Germanica, p. 93.) That our existence itself implies a guilt is proved by death.

§ 165

A noble character will not readily complain about his own fate; on the contrary, what Hamlet says in praise of Horatio will apply to him:

for thou hast been
As one, in suffering all, that suffers nothing.


This can be understood from the fact that such a man, recognizing his own true nature in others and thus sharing their fate, almost invariably sees around him an even harder lot than his own and so cannot bring himself to complain of the latter. An ignoble egoist, on the other hand, who limits all reality to himself and regards others as mere masks and phantoms, will take no part in their fate, but will devote the whole of his sympathy and interest to his own; the results of this will then be great sensitiveness and frequent complaints.

It is precisely that recognition of oneself in another's phenomenal appearance from which, as I have often shown, justice and loving kindness proceed in the first instance, and which finally leads to giving up the will. For the phenomena, wherein this will manifests itself, are so definitely in a state of suffering, that whoever extends his own self to all of them can no longer will its continuance; just as one who takes all the tickets in a lottery must necessarily suffer a great loss. The affirmation of the will presupposes the restriction of self-consciousness to one's own individuality and reckons on the possibility of a favourable career in life from the hand of chance.

§ 166

If in our conception of the world we start from the thing-in-itself, the will-to-live, we find as its kernel and greatest concentration the act of generation. This presents itself as the first thing, the point of departure; it is the punctum saliens [6] of the world-egg and the main issue. What a contrast, on the other hand, if we start from the empirical world that is given as phenomenon, from the world as representation! Here that act manifests itself as something quite individual and special, of secondary significance, in fact as a matter concealed and covered up which is of no importance and merely slips in, a paradoxical anomaly that often affords material for laughter. However, it might even seem to us that here the devil wanted merely to hide his game, for copulation is his currency and the world his kingdom. For has it not been observed how illico post coitum cachinnus auditur Diaboli? [7] Seriously speaking, this is due to the fact that sexual desire, especially when through fixation on a definite woman it is concentrated to amorous infatuation, is the quintessence of the whole fraud of this noble world; for it promises so unspeakably, infinitely, and excessively much, and then performs so contemptibly little.

The woman's share in generation is, in a certain sense, more innocent than the man's, in so far as the man gives to the being to be procreated the will that is the first sin and hence the source of all wickedness and evil, whereas the woman gives knowledge which opens up the way to salvation. The act of generation is the world-knot, for it states: 'The will-to-live has affirmed itself anew.' In this sense, a standing Brahmanical phrase laments: 'Alas, alas, the lingam is in the yoni!' Conception and pregnancy, on the other hand, say: 'To the will is once more given the light of knowledge'; whereby it can again find its way out; and so the possibility of salvation has once more appeared.

From this is explained the remarkable phenomenon that, whereas every woman would die of shame if surprised in the act of generation, she nevertheless bears her pregnancy in public without a trace of shame and even with a kind of pride. For as everywhere else an infallibly certain sign is taken as equivalent to the thing signified, so also does every other sign of the completed coitus shame and confuse the woman in the highest degree; pregnancy alone does not. This can be explained from the fact that, according to what has been said, pregnancy in a certain sense entails, or at any rate offers, the prospect of an expiation of the guilt or debt that was contracted by the coitus. And so this bears all the shame and disgrace of the matter, whereas the pregnancy, so closely related to it, remains pure and innocent, and to a certain extent even becomes sacred.

Coitus is mainly the affair of the man; pregnancy is entirely that of the woman. From the father the child receives the will, the character; from the mother, the intellect. The latter is the redeeming principle, the former the binding. The sign of the constant existence of the will-to-live in time, in spite of all increase in illumination through the intellect, is the coitus. The sign of the light of knowledge and indeed in the supreme degree of clearness, which is presented afresh to this will and holds open to it the possibility of salvation, is the renewed coming into existence of the will-to-live as man. The sign of this is pregnancy which, therefore, goes about frankly and freely and even proudly, whereas coitus like a criminal creeps into a corner.

§ 167

Some Fathers of the Church have taught that even marital cohabitation should be permitted only when it occurs for the sake of procreating children, [x], [8] as is said by Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, lib. III, c. I I. (The relevant passages are found collected in P. E. Lind, De coelibatu Christianorum, chap. 1.) Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, lib. III, c. 3, attributes this view to the Pythagoreans. However, such a view is, strictly speaking, incorrect; for if coitus is no longer desired for its own sake, the denial of the will-to-live has already appeared and then the propagation of the human race is superfluous and senseless in so far as its object is already attained. Moreover, to place a human being in the world so that he should exist therein and to do so without any subjective passion and without lust and physical ardour, merely from sheer deliberation and cold-blooded intention, would be morally a very questionable action. Indeed, few would take this upon themselves and perhaps one might even say of it that it was related to generation from mere sexual impulse as is cold-blooded and deliberate murder to a mortal blow given in anger.

The condemnation of all unnatural sexual satisfaction rests really on the opposite ground, since through it the impulse is gratified and thus the will-to-live is affirmed, but propagation is suppressed, which alone keeps open the possibility of the denial of the will. This is the reason why pederasty was recognized as a grave sin only with the appearance of Christianity whose tendency is ascetic.

§ 168

A monastery is an assemblage of those who have embraced poverty, chastity, obedience (i.e. renunciation of one's own will) and who, by living together, try to lighten to some extent existence itself, but even more so that state of severe renunciation. For the sight of those who hold similar views and undergo the same renunciation strengthens their resolve and consoles them, and the companionship of living together within certain limits is suited to human nature and is an innocent relaxation in spite of many severe privations. This is the normal conception of monasteries. And who can call such a society an association of fools and simpletons, as one is bound to according to every philosophy except mine?

The inner spirit and meaning of genuine monastic life, as of asceticism generally, are that a man has recognized himself as worthy and capable of an existence better than ours and wants to strengthen and maintain this conviction by despising what this world offers, casting aside all its pleasures as worthless, and now awaiting calmly and confidently the end of this life that is stripped of its empty allurements, in order one day to welcome the hour of death as that of salvation. The Sannyasis have exactly the same tendency and significance, and so too have the Buddhist monks. Certainly in no case does practice so rarely correspond to theory as in that of monasticism just because its fundamental idea is so sublime; and abusus optimi pessimus. [9] A genuine monk is exceedingly venerable, but in the great majority of cases the cowl is a mere mask behind which there is just as little of the real monk as there is behind one at a masquerade.

§ 169

The notion that we should submit and surrender entirely and without reserve to the individual will of another is a psychic means of facilitating the denial of our own will and is thus a suitable allegorical vehicle of the truth.

§ 170

The number of regular Trappists is naturally small; but yet half of mankind consists of involuntary Trappists; poverty, obedience, absence of all pleasures and even of the most necessary means of relief, and frequently also chastity that is forced or brought about through want or some defect, are their lot. The difference is simply that the Trappists pursue the matter of their own free choice, methodically and without hope of any change for the better; whereas the other way is to be ranged with what I have described in my ascetic chapters by the expression [x]. [10] Therefore by virtue of the basis of her order, nature has already taken adequate care to bring this about, especially if we add to the evils that spring directly from her those others that are produced by the discord, dissension, and malice of men in war and peace. But this very necessity of involuntary suffering for eternal salvation is also expressed by that utterance of the Saviour (Matthew 19: 24): [x]. (Facilius est, funem ancorarium per foramen acus transire, quam divitem regnum divinum ingredi.) [11] Therefore those who were greatly in earnest about their eternal salvation, chose voluntary poverty when fate had denied this to them and they had been born in wealth. Thus Buddha Sakya Muni was born a prince, but voluntarily took to the mendicant's staff; and Francis of Assisi, the founder of the mendicant orders who, as a youngster at the ball, where the daughters of all the notabilities were sitting together, was asked: 'Now, Francis, will you not soon make your choice from these beauties?' and who replied: 'I have made a far more beautiful choice!' 'Whom?' 'La poverta'; whereupon he abandoned every thing shortly afterwards and wandered through the land as a mendicant.

Whoever through such considerations realizes how necessary to our salvation misery and suffering usually are will see that we should envy others their unhappiness rather than their happiness.

For the same reason, the stoicism of the disposition which defies fate is also, it is true, a good armour against the sufferings of life and helps us to endure the present; but it stands in the way of true salvation, for it hardens the heart. Indeed, how can this be improved by sufferings if it is surrounded by a crust of stone and does not feel them? Moreover, a certain degree of this stoicism is not very rare. Often it may be affectation and amount to a bonne mine au mauvais jeu; [12] where, however, it is genuine and unfeigned, it springs in most cases from a mere want of feeling, from a lack of energy, brightness, sensitiveness, and imagination, all of which are requisite to a great agony of sorrow. The phlegmatic and sluggish temperament of the Germans is particularly favourable to this kind of stoicism.

§ 171

With regard to the man who commits them, unjust or malicious actions are a sign of the strength of his affirmation of the will-to-live and accordingly of the distance separating him from true salvation, from denial of the will-to-live, and consequently from redemption from the world. They are also a sign of the long school of knowledge and suffering he has still to go through before he attains salvation. In respect of the man who has to suffer such actions, they are physically an evil, it is true, but metaphysically a blessing and at bottom a benefit, for they help to lead him to his true salvation.

§ 172

WORLD-SPIRIT: Here then is the task of your labours and sufferings; for these you shall exist, as do all other things.

MAN: But what have I from existence? If my existence is occupied, I have trouble; if it is unoccupied, I have boredom. How can you offer me so miserable a reward for so much labour and suffering?

WORLD-SPIRIT: And yet this reward is the equivalent of all your troubles, and it is precisely this by virtue of its inadequacy.

MAN: Indeed? This really exceeds my powers of comprehension.

WORLD-SPIRIT: I know. -- (aside) Should I tell him that the value of life consists precisely in its teaching him not to will it? For this supreme dedication life itself must first prepare him.

§ I72a

As I have said, looked at as a whole, each human life reveals the qualities of a tragedy and we see that, as a rule, life is nothing but a series of disappointed hopes, frustrated plans, and errors recognized too late, and that the truth of the mournful verse applies to it:

Then old age and experience, hand in hand,
Lead him to death and make him understand,
After a search so painful and so long,
That all his life he has been in the wrong.


All this agrees entirely with my view of the world which regards existence itself as something that were better not to be, a kind of mistake from which a knowledge of it is to bring us back. Man in general, [x], is already in the wrong in so far as he exists and is man; consequently it is wholly in keeping with this that each individual human being, [x], also finds himself generally in the wrong when he surveys his life. That he sees it in general is his salvation, and for this he must begin by recognizing it in the individual case, i.e. in his own individual life. For quidquid valet de genere, valet et de specie. [12]

Life is to be regarded entirely as a sharp scolding which is administered to us, although, with our forms of thought that are calculated for quite different ends, we cannot understand how it could be possible for us to need it. Accordingly, we should look back with satisfaction on our deceased friends, bearing in mind that they have got over their scolding and heartily wishing that it has had the desired effect. From the same point of view, we should look forward to our own death as a desirable and happy event instead of, as is generally the case, with fear and trembling.

A happy life is impossible; the best that man can attain is a heroic life, such as is lived by one who struggles against overwhelming odds in some way and some affair that will benefit the whole of mankind, and who in the end triumphs, although he obtains a poor reward or none at all. For in the end, he is turned to stone like the prince in Gozzi's Re corvo, but he has a noble bearing and magnanimous look. His memory lasts and is celebrated as that of a hero; his will, mortified by toil and trouble, failure, and the world's ingratitude throughout his life, is extinguished in Nirvana. (In this sense, Carlyle wrote On Heroes and Hero-worship, London, 1842.)

§ 173

Now if through considerations such as the above and so from a very lofty standpoint, we see a justification for the sufferings of mankind, this nevertheless does not extend to the animals whose sufferings are considerable, brought on for the most part through man, but often also without his agency. (See World as Will and Representation, vol. ii, chap. 28.) And so the question then forces itself on us as to the purpose of this troubled and tormented will in its thousands of different forms without the freedom to salvation which is conditioned by reflectiveness. The suffering of the animal world is to be justified merely from the fact that the will-to-live must devour its own flesh because in the phenomenal world absolutely nothing exists besides it, and it is a hungry will. Hence the gradation of its phenomena each of which lives at the expense of another. Further, I refer to §§ 153 and 154 which show that the capacity for suffering is in the animal very much less than in man. Now what might be added beyond this would prove to be hypothetical or even mythical and may, therefore, be left to the reader's own speculation.

_______________

Notes:

1 ['Expansion' and 'contraction'.]

2 [Sanskrit maha sushuptih, the great and profound sleep, the periodical entry of the world into the Brahman.]

3 [' The Beyond'.]

4 ['Willing and not-willing'.]

5 ['Until willing becomes not-willing'.]

6 [First trace of the heart in an embryo-Oxford English Dictionary.]

7 [' Directly after copulation the devil's laughter is heard.']

8 ['For the mere procreation of children'.]

9 ['The worst is the abuse of the best.']

10 ['The next best course'.]

11 ['It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.']

12 ['A smile in the face of adversity'.]

 13 ['What applies to the genus applies also to the species.' (Logical rule.)]
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36180
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Parerga and Paralipomena: Short Philosophical Essays

Postby admin » Thu Feb 01, 2018 2:05 am

Part 1 of 4

CHAPTER 15: On Religion

§ 174

A Dialogue

DEMOPHELES: Between ourselves, my dear fellow, I do not like the way in which you occasionally show your philosophical ability by being sarcastic and even openly derisive about religion. Everyone's faith is to him sacred and so should be to you.

PHILALETHES: Nego consequentiam! [1] I do not see why, because of the stupidity of others, I should have respect for falsehood and imposture. I respect truth everywhere, but not that which is opposed thereto. Never on this earth will truth shine so long as you shackle men's minds in such a way. My motto is: vigeat: veritas, et pereat mundus, [2] like that of the lawyers: fiat justitia, et pereat mundus. [3] Every faculty should have for its device an analogous motto.

DEMOPHELES: Then I suppose that the device of the doctors would be: fiant pilulae, et pereat mundus, [4] which could be most easily brought about.

PHILALETHES: Heaven forbid! Everything must be taken cum grano salis. [5]

DEMOPHELES: Good; but that is just why I wanted you to understand and see religion also cum grano salis. I wanted you to see that the needs of the people must be met in accordance with their powers of comprehension. Religion is the only way to proclaim and make plain the high significance of life to the crude intellect and clumsy understanding of the masses who are immersed in sordid pursuits and material labour. For, as a rule, a man originally has no interest for anything except the satisfaction of his physical needs and desires, and thus for some amusement and pastime. Founders of religions and philosophers come into the world to shake man out of his lethargy and to point out to him the lofty meaning of existence; philosophers for the few who are exempt, founders of religions for the majority, for humanity at large. For [x], [6] as even Plato said, and you should not forget this. Religion is the metaphysics of the people, which we must certainly let them have and, therefore, must externally respect; for to discredit it is equivalent to taking it away from them. Just as there is a popular poetry and in proverbs a popular wisdom, so must there be also a popular metaphysics. For people positively need an interpretation of life, which must be appropriate to their powers of comprehension. It is, therefore, always an allegorical way of expressing the truth; and in practical affairs and as regards feelings, that is, as a guide to conduct and a comfort and consolation in suffering and death, it probably achieves just as much as could truth itself if we were to possess it. Do not take offence at its preposterous, burlesque, and apparently absurd form; for in your culture and learning you have no idea what roundabout ways are needed to bring home profound truths to people in their crude ignorance. The different religions are simply different systems wherein the people grasp and picture to themselves the truth which in itself is incomprehensible to them; yet for them the truth becomes inseparable from such systems. Therefore, my dear fellow, do not take it amiss when I say that to ridicule religion is both narrow-minded and unfair.

PHILALETHES: But is it not just as narrow-minded and unfair to demand that there shall be no other system of metaphysics than just this one that is cut to suit the people's needs and powers of comprehension? Why should its teachings be the landmark of human investigation and the guide to all thinking so that the metaphysics of the few, of the exempt as you call them, must result in confirming, establishing, and explaining the metaphysics of the masses? And so why should the highest powers of the human mind remain unused and undeveloped, and in fact be nipped in the bud, so that their activity may not thwart the metaphysics of the people? And fundamentally is it any different as regards the pretensions of religion? Is it right and proper for one to preach tolerance and even tender forbearance, who is the very embodiment of intolerance and ruthlessness? I call to witness courts for heretics, inquisitions, religious wars, crusades, Socrates' cup of poison, the deaths of Bruno and Vanini at the stake. And is all this today a thing of the past? What can be more opposed to genuine philosophical effort, to the sincere investigation of the truth, to this noblest calling of the noblest men, than this conventional metaphysics which is invested with a monopoly by the State? Its precepts and dogmas are inculcated so earnestly, deeply, and firmly at the earliest age into every mind that, unless that mind is miraculously elastic, they remain indelibly impressed. In this way, its faculty of reason is once for all confused and deranged, in other words, its capacity for original thought and unbiased judgement, weak enough as it is, is for ever paralysed and ruined as regards everything connected therewith.

DEMOPHELES: This really means, I suppose, that people have then gained a conviction which they will not give up in order to accept yours instead.

PHILALETHES: Ah! if only it were a conviction based on insight. We could then bring arguments to bear, and the field of battle would be open to us with equal weapons. But religions admittedly appeal not to conviction with arguments, but to faith with revelations. Now the capacity for faith is strongest in childhood; and so men are primarily concerned with taking possession of this tender age. In this way, much more than by threats and the accounts of miracles, do the doctrines of faith strike root. Thus if in early childhood a boy is repeatedly told certain fundamental views and doctrines with unusual solemnity and an air of the loftiest earnestness never before seen by him; and if, at the same time, the possibility of doubting them is entirely passed over or else touched on merely to point to it as the first step to eternal perdition, then the impression will prove to be so deep that, as a rule, in other words in almost all cases, he will be wellnigh as incapable of doubting those doctrines as he is of doubting his own existence. And so of many thousands, hardly one will possess the strength of mind seriously and honestly to ask himself whether this or that is true. Those who were nevertheless capable of so doing were, therefore, called strong minds, esprits forts, more appropriately than was supposed. But for the remainder there is nothing so absurd or revolting that the firmest belief in it will not strike root in them if it is implanted in that way. If, for example, the killing of a heretic or an unbeliever were an essential thing to the future salvation of his soul, almost everyone would make this the principal affair of his life, and, in dying, would draw consolation and strength from remembering that he had succeeded; just as formerly almost every Spaniard regarded an auto-da-fe as a work most pious and pleasing to God. We have in India a counterpart to this in the religious fraternity of the Thugs which was only recently suppressed by the English, who carried out a number of executions. Its members practised their sense of religion and veneration for the goddess Kali by assassinating on every occasion their own friends and travelling companions in order to take possession of their property. They were quite seriously under the impression that in this they were doing something praiseworthy and conducive to their eternal salvation. [7] Accordingly, the power of early inculcated religious dogmas is so strong that it can stifle conscience and ultimately all compassion and every humane feeling. But if you want to see with your own eyes and at close quarters what early inculcation of faith does, consider the English. Look at this nation, more highly favoured by nature than all the others and better endowed with intelligence, understanding, power of judgement, and strength of character; see how debased they are beyond all others, in fact, how positively contemptible they become, through the stupid superstition of their Church which appears among their other abilities positively like a fixed idea or monomania. For this they have to thank simply the fact that education is in the hands of the clergy who take good care to inculcate on their minds at the earliest age all the articles of faith in a way that amounts to a kind of partial paralysis of the brain. This, then, expresses itself throughout their lives in that idiotic bigotry whereby even otherwise highly intelligent and sensible men among them degrade themselves, and we know not what to think or make of them. If we now consider how essential it is to such masterpieces that the inculcation of faith is done at the tender age of childhood, the missionary business will no longer appear merely as the height of human importunity, arrogance, and impertinence, but also as an absurdity in so far as it does not confine itself to races who are still in a state of childhood, like the Hottentots, Kaffirs, South Sea Islanders, and others, and among whom it has accordingly met with real success. In India, on the other hand, the Brahmans treat the discourses of the missionaries with condescending smiles of approbation or with a shrug of the shoulders; and, generally speaking, the efforts of the missionaries to convert these men have ended in failure, notwithstanding the most suitable opportunities. An authentic report in the Asiatic Journal, volume xxi of 1826, states that, after so many years of missionary activity, not more than three hundred living converts were to be found in the whole of India (where the British possessions alone have a population of one hundred and fifty millions, according to The Times, April 1852). At the same time, it is admitted that the Christian converts are marked by their extreme immorality. Just three hundred bribed mercenary souls out of so many millions! Nowhere in India do I see that things have since gone any better for Christianity, [8] although in schools devoted exclusively to secular English instruction, and yet contrary to stipulation, the missionaries now try to work on children's minds as they think best in order to smuggle in Christianity; against this, however, the Hindus are most jealously on their guard. For, as I have said, childhood is the only time for sowing the seeds of faith, not manhood, especially where an earlier faith has already taken root. But the acquired conviction which grown-up converts pretend to have, is, as a rule, only the mask of some personal interest. And just because one feels that this could hardly ever be otherwise, a man who changes his religion at a mature age is everywhere despised by most people, although in this way they show that they regard religion not as a matter of rational conviction, but merely of faith early implanted before any test could be applied. But that they are right in this matter follows also from the fact that not merely the blindly believing masses, but also the priests of every religion, who, as such, have studied its sources, foundations, dogmas, and controversies, all stick faithfully and zealously as a body to the religion of their particular country; and so it is the rarest thing in the world for a priest of one religion or confession to go over to another. For example, we see the Catholic clergy perfectly convinced of the truth of all the tenets of their Church and the Protestant clergy just as convinced of the truth of theirs, and both defend the dogmas and precepts of their confession with equal zeal. Nevertheless, this conviction is regulated by the country in which each is born; thus to the South German priest the truth of the Catholic dogma is perfectly obvious, but to the North German that of the Protestant. And so if such convictions are based on objective grounds, these must be climatic and like plants, some of which thrive only in one place, others only in another. But now the people everywhere accept on faith and trust the convictions of those who are locally convinced.

DEMOPHELES: No harm is done and it makes no essential difference; for example, Protestantism is actually more suited to the North, Catholicism to the South.

PHILALETHES: So it seems; but I have taken a higher point of view and keep in mind a more important object, namely progress of the knowledge of truth in the human race. For this it is a terrible thing that, wherever anyone is born, certain statements are inculcated in him in his earliest youth on the assurance that he may never have any doubts about them without running the risk of forfeiting his eternal salvation. Thus I refer to statements that affect the foundation of all our other knowledge and accordingly for this fix for all time the point of view. In the event of such statements themselves being false, the point of view is for ever distorted. Moreover, as their corollaries everywhere affect the whole system of our knowledge, this is then thoroughly falsified and adulterated by them. Every literature proves this, most strikingly that of the Middle Ages, but also that of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries to an excessive degree. Look at even the greatest minds of all those periods and see how paralysed they were by such false fundamental notions, but especially how all insight into the true constitution and working of nature was, so to speak, boarded up for them. For during the whole Christian period, theism lies like a nightmare on all intellectual, and especially philosophical, efforts and impedes or cripples all progress. God, devil, angels, and demons conceal the whole of nature from the scholars of those times; no investigation is carried out to the end, no matter is thoroughly examined, but everything that transcends the most evident and obvious causal nexus is at once set at rest by those personalities, for it is precisely as Pomponatius expresses himself on such an occasion: certe philosophi nihil verisimile habent ad haec, quare necesse est, ad Deum, ad angelos et daemones recurrere [9] (De incantationibus, chap. 7). Here, of course, we may suspect this man of irony, for his perfidy is known to us in other ways, yet in this connection he has expressed only the general mode of thought of his age. If, on the other hand, a man had a rare elasticity of mind which alone is capable of bursting the fetters, he and his writings were burnt, as happened to Bruno and Vanini. But how completely paralysed the ordinary mind is by that early preparation in metaphysics can be most strikingly seen and on its ludicrous side when such a mind undertakes to criticize the teaching of a strange and unfamiliar creed. We then find that such a man is, as a rule, merely concerned to point out carefully that its dogmas do not agree with those of his own creed. For he is at great pains to explain that they not only do not say, but also certainly do not mean, the same thing as is expressed in the dogmas of his own creed. Here in all his simplicity he imagines that he has demonstrated the false nature of the alien creed. It never really occurs to him to put the question which of the two may be right; on the contrary, his own articles of faith are for him sure and certain principles a priori. An amusing example of this kind was furnished by the Reverend Morrison in the Asiatic Journal, volume xx, where he criticizes the religion and philosophy of the Chinese; it is delightful.

DEMOPHELES: So that is your higher point of view; but I can assure you that there is an even higher. Primum vivere, deinde philosophari [10] has a more comprehensive meaning than at first sight appears. The first thing is to restrain the rough and evil dispositions of the masses in order to prevent them from committing acts of extreme injustice, cruelty, violence, and disgrace. Now if we wished to wait until they had recognized and grasped the truth, we should undoubtedly come too late. For even supposing that the truth had already been discovered, it would be beyond their powers of comprehension. In any case, an allegorical clothing of it, a parable, a myth, serves their purpose. As Kant has said, there must be a public standard of right and virtue; and in fact this must at all times flutter high overhead. After all, it is immaterial what heraldic figures are put on it, if only it signifies what is meant. Such an allegory of the truth is always and everywhere to mankind as a whole a suitable substitute of the truth itself which is for ever inaccessible to them and generally of philosophy which they can never grasp; not to mention the fact that this daily changes its frame and has not yet in any form met with general recognition. And so, my dear Philalethes, practical aims in every respect take precedence of theoretical.

PHILALETHES: This agrees closely enough with the ancient advice of Timaeus of Locri, the Pythagorean: [x] [11] (De anima mundi, p. 104, Stephanus), and I almost suspect that you want to impress on me, as is the vogue just now,

But still the time may reach us, good my friend,
When peace we crave and more luxurious diet, [12]


and your recommendation is really that we should take timely precautions so that the surging masses of the turbulent and discontented may not disturb us at table. But this entire point of view is as false as it is popular and extolled at the present time, and so I hasten to enter a protest against it. It is false that the State,justice, and the law cannot be upheld without the assistance of religion and its articles of faith, and that justice and the police need religion as their necessary complement for the purpose of carrying out law and order. False it is, even if it is repeated a hundred times. For an effective and striking instantia in contrarium  [13] is afforded by the ancients, especially the Greeks. Thus they had nothing at all of what we understand by religion. They had no sacred records and no dogma which was taught, whose acceptance was demanded of everyone, and which was inculcated in early youth. Just as little was morality preached by the ministers of religion, and the priests did not bother about morals or generally what people did or omitted to do. Not at all! On the contrary, the duty of the priests extended only to temple ceremonies, prayers, hymns, sacrifices, processions, lustrations, and the like, and the object of all these was anything but the moral improvement of the individual. The whole of religion so called consisted rather in the fact that some of the di majorum gentium, [14] especially in the cities, had temples here and there in which they were worshipped in the aforesaid manner for the sake of the State, such a cult being at bottom an affair of the police. Except the functionaries taking part, no one was in any way compelled to attend or even to believe in it. In the whole of antiquity there is no trace of an obligation to believe in any dogma. Only the man who publicly denied the existence of the gods, or otherwise reviled them, was liable to be punished; for he gave offence to the State that served them; but apart from this, it was left to everyone to think of them what he liked. If anyone felt disposed to win the favour of those gods, privately through prayers or sacrifices, he was free so to do at his own expense and risk. If he did not do so, no one raised any objection, least of all the State. With the Romans, everyone had at home his own Lares and Penates which in reality were merely the venerated busts of his ancestors. (Apuleius, De deo Socratis, chap. 15, vol. ii, p. 237, ed. Bip.) Of the immortality of the soul and a life after death, the ancients had no firm and clear ideas, least of all those fixed by dogma, but quite loose, fluctuating, indefinite, and problematical notions, each in his own way; and just as varied, individual, and vague were the ideas about the gods. Thus the ancients did not really have religion in our sense of the word. But did anarchy and lawlessness for that reason prevail among them? Are not law and civil order so much their work that they still constitute the basis of our own? Was not property completely safeguarded, although it consisted for the most part of slaves? Did not this state of affairs last for over a thousand years?

I cannot, therefore, acknowledge and must object to the practical aims and necessity of religion in the sense indicated by you and universally popular al the present time, namely that it is an indispensable foundation to all law and order. For such a point of view, the pure and sacred striving for light and truth would appear quixotic, to say the least, and even criminal, if in its feelings of justice it should venture to denounce the faith of authority as the usurper that has taken possession of the throne of truth and maintains it by keeping up the deception.

DEMOPHELES: But religion is not opposed to truth; for it itself teaches this. Since the sphere of its action is not a small lecturer-oom but the world and mankind at large, religion must conform to the needs and powers of comprehension of so large and mixed a public. It cannot allow truth to appear naked or, to use a medical simile, it may not administer it pure and unalloyed, but must make use of a mythical vehicle as a solvent or menstruum. In this respect, you can also compare truth to certain chemical substances which in themselves are gaseous, but which for medicinal uses as well as for preservation or dispatch must be bound to a firm solid base, since they would otherwise volatilize. For example, chlorine gas is applied to all such purposes only in the form of chlorides. But in case truth, pure, abstract, and free from everything mythical, should remain for ever unattainable to us all, even to the philosophers, it could be compared to fluorine which cannot even be exhibited by itself alone, but can appear only in combination with other substances. Or, to speak less scientifically, truth that generally cannot be expressed except mythically and allegorically, is like water that cannot be carried about without a vessel; but philosophers who insist on possessing it, pure and unalloyed, are like the man who breaks the vessel in order to have the water simply by itself. Perhaps this is actually the case. At any rate, religion is truth allegorically and mythically expressed and thus rendered accessible and digestible for mankind at large. For people could never bear the truth pure and unmixed, just as we cannot live in pure oxygen, but require an addition of four times the amount of nitrogen. Thus to speak without figurative expression, the profound meaning and lofty aim of life can be revealed and presented only symbolically because men are incapable of grasping these in their proper significance. Philosophy, on the other hand, should be, like the mysteries of the Eleusinia, for the few and the elect.

PHILALETHES: I understand; the whole thing amounts to truth appearing in the guise of falsehood; but in so doing it enters into an alliance that is injurious to it. What a dangerous weapon is put into the hands of those who are given authority to employ falsehood as the vehicle of truth! If this is the case, I am afraid that the damage done by falsehood will be greater than any advantage ever produced by the truth. If, of course, the allegory could be given admittedly as such, that would be all right; but this would deprive it of all respect and thus of all effectiveness. It must, therefore, assert and maintain that it is true sensu proprio, whereas at best it is true sensu allegorico. Here are to be found the irreparable harm and the permanent drawback; and this is why religion has always come into conflict with the noble and dispassionate aspiration to pure truth, and will do so again and again.

DEMOPHELES: Oh no! for this too has been thought of. If religion may not exactly acknowledge its allegorical nature, it gives sufficient indication thereof.

PHILALETHES: And how does it do that?

DEMOPHELES: In its mysteries. At bottom, even' mystery' is only the theological terminus technicus for religious allegory and all religions have their mysteries. Properly speaking, a mystery is an obviously absurd dogma which nevertheless conceals within itself a sublime truth. In itself, this truth is wholly unintelligible to the ordinary understanding of the crude and uncultured masses, who now accept it in this disguise on faith and trust, without allowing themselves to be led astray by the absurdity that is obvious even to them. In this way, they now participate in the kernel of the matter in so far as it is possible for them to do so. I may add by way of explanation that even in philosophy the attempt has been made to use a mystery, for example when Pascal, who was at the same time pietiest, mathematician, and philosopher, says in this threefold capacity that God is everywhere centre and nowhere periphery. Even Malebranche has quite rightly observed that la liberti est un mystere. [15] One could go farther and assert that really everything in religions is mystery. For to inculcate into the minds of the people in their crude state truth sensu proprio is absolutely impossible; only a mythical and allegorical reflection thereof can fall to their lot and enlighten them. Naked truth is out of place in the presence of the profane mob; she can appear before them only in a thick veil. For this reason, it is quite unreasonable to expect a religion to be true sensu proprio; and incidentally in our day, the rationalists as well as the supernaturalists are absurd, since both start from the assumption that religion must be true sensu proprio. The former then prove that it is not so, and the latter obstinately assert that it is; or rather the former cut out and arrange the allegorical so that it could be true sensu proprio but would then be a platitude; whereas the latter, without any further preparation, wish to assert that it is true sensu proprio, a point which cannot possibly be enforced, as they should know, without the Inquisition and the stake. On the other hand, myth and allegory are the real elements of religion; but under this condition, which is absolutely necessary on account of the intellectual limitation of the masses, religion adequately satisfies man's ineradicable metaphysical need, and takes the place of pure philosophical truth which is infinitely difficult, and perhaps for ever impossible, to reach.

PHILALETHES: Ah yes, somewhat in the same way that a wooden leg takes the place of a natural; it supplies what is missing, hardly does duty for this, claims to be regarded as a natural one, is more or less ingeniously put together, and so on. A difference, on the other hand, is that a natural leg, as a rule, preceded a wooden, whereas religion has everywhere had the start of philosophy.

DEMOPHELES: All this may be true, but for the man who has no natural leg, a wooden one is of great value. You must bear in mind that man's metaphysical needs positively demand satisfaction because the horizon of his thoughts must come to an end and cannot remain unbounded. As a rule, man has no power of judgement for weighing up arguments and then deciding what is false and what true. Moreover, the labour imposed on him by nature and her urgency leaves him no time for investigations of this sort, or for the cultivation of the mind which they presuppose. And so with him it is not a case of conviction from reasons and arguments; on the contrary, he is referred to belief and authority. Even if a really true philosophy had taken the place of religion, it would still be accepted merely on authority by at least nine-tenths of mankind and so would again be a matter of faith; for Plato's [x] 16 will always be true. Now authority is established by time and circumstances alone; and so we cannot bestow it on that which has in its favour nothing but reasons and arguments. Consequently, we must grant it to that which has obtained it in the course of history, although this may be only truth that is presented in an allegorical form. Now supported by authority, this form of truth appeals first to the really metaphysical tendency in man and thus to the theoretical need that arises from the pressing enigma of our existence and from the consciousness that, behind the physical aspect of the world, there must somehow be something metaphysical, something unchangeable, which serves as the basis of constant change. Then again this kind of truth appeals to the will, to the fear and hope of mortals who live in constant sorrow and affliction. It accordingly creates for them gods and demons whom they can invoke and appease and whose favour they can win. Finally, it appeals to that moral consciousness undeniably existing in man and gives confirmation and support to this from without. In the absence of such support, that moral consciousness could not easily maintain itself in the struggle with so many temptations. It is precisely from this side that religion affords an inexhaustible source of consolation and comfort in the innumerable sorrows and afflictions of life, which does not forsake man even in death, but rather reveals at precisely this time its full effectiveness. Accordingly, religion resembles one who takes by the hand a blind man and leads him; for he himself cannot see and the main thing is that he should reach his destination, not that he should see everything.

PHILALETHES: This side is certainly the brilliant point of religion. If it is a fraus, [17] then it is really a pia fraus; [18] that is undeniable. Accordingly, for us, priests become something between impostors and teachers of morals. For, as you yourself have quite rightly explained, they dare not teach the real truth even if it were known to them, which is not the case. Thus at all events there may be a true philosophy, but certainly not a true religion; I mean true in the proper sense of the word and not merely so through the flower or allegory, as you have described it; on the contrary, in this sense, every religion will be true, only in different degrees. But it is certainly quite in keeping with the inextricable mixture of prosperity and misfortune, honesty and deceit, good and evil, magnanimity and meanness, which the world generally offers us, that the most important, sublime, and sacred truth cannot appear except in combination with a lie, indeed can even borrow strength therefrom as from that which has a more powerful effect on men and, as revelation, must be introduced by a lie. One might even consider this fact as the monogram of the moral world. However, we will not abandon hope that one day mankind will reach the point of maturity and culture where it is able to produce the true philosophy on the one hand, and to assimilate it on the other. Yet if simplex sigillum veri,I9 the naked truth must be so simple and intelligible that one must be able to impart it in its true form to all without amalgamating it with myths and fables (a pack of lies), in other words, without disguising it in the form of religion.

DEMOPHELES: You have no adequate conception of the pitiable incapacity of the masses.

PHILALETHES: I am expressing it only as a hope, but I cannot give it up. Then truth in a simple and intelligible form would naturally drive religion from the place which the latter had so long occupied as deputy but had in precisely this way kept open for the former. Religion will then have fulfilled its mission and completed its course; it can then dismiss the race that it has brought to years of discretion and itself expire in peace; such will be the euthanasia of religion. But as long as religion lives, it has two faces, one of truth and one of deception. According as we look at the one or the other, we shall be friendly or hostile to it. We must, therefore, regard religion as a necessary evil, the necessity of which rests on the deplorable feeble-mindedness of the great majority who are incapable of grasping the truth and so, in an urgent case, need a substitute for it.

DEMOPHELES: Really, one would imagine that you philosophers already had truth cut and dried and that the only thing to do was to grasp it.

PHILALETHES: If we have not got the truth, this is to be attributed mainly to the pressure under which, at all times and in all countries, philosophy has been kept by religion. Men have tried to render impossible not only the expression and communication of truth, but even the contemplation and discovery thereof by putting children in their earliest years into the hands of the priests to have their minds manipulated by them. The track, whereon the fundamental ideas are to run in future, is laid down by the priests with such firmness that, in the main, such ideas are fixed and definite for the whole of life. When I take up the works of even the most eminent minds of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, I must confess to being sometimes shocked, especially when I come from my oriental studies, to see how they are everywhere paralysed and hemmed in on all sides by the fundamental Jewish conception. I ask myself how anyone with such a preparation can think out the true philosophy.

DEMOPHELES: And even if this true philosophy were discovered, religion would not then disappear from the world, as you imagine. For there cannot be one system of metaphysics for all; the natural difference in intellectual powers and the additional difference in their development will never admit of this. The great majority must necessarily attend to the heavy physical labour that is inevitably required for procuring the infinite number of things that are needed by the whole race. Not only does this leave them no time for education, learning, or contemplation, but, in virtue of the decided antagonism between irritability and sensibility, much intense physical exertion blunts the mind, makes it heavy, dull, clumsy, awkward, and thus incapable of grasping any other than quite simple and palpable relations and situations. At least nine-tenths of the human race fall under this category. But men nevertheless need a system of metaphysics, i.e. an account of the world and our existence, because such is one of their most natural needs. Indeed they require a popular metaphysics and, to be capable of this, it must combine many rare qualities. Thus it must be easily intelligible and at the same time possess in the right places a certain obscurity and even impenetrability. Then a correct and adequate morality must be associated with its dogmas; above all, however, it must afford inexhaustible consolation in suffering and death. It follows from all this that it will not be possible for religion to be true sensu proprio, but only sensu allegorico. Further, it must still have the support of an authority that is impressive on account of its great age, its universal acceptance, its records and documents together with their tone and enunciation. These are qualities that can be united only with such infinite difficulty that many a man would not be so ready and willing, if he considered the matter, to help to undermine a religion, but would bear in mind that it is the people's most sacred treasure. Whoever wishes to form an opinion on religion, should always keep an eye on the nature of the masses for whom it is intended and thus picture to himself the extent of their moral and intellectual depravity and inferiority. It is incredible how far this goes and how persistently a tiny spark of truth will continue to glow faintly even under the crudest covering of monstrous fables and grotesque ceremonies. It clings as ineradicably as does the odour of musk to everything that has once been in contact therewith. As an illustration of this, consider, on the one hand, the profound Indian wisdom that is recorded in the Upanishads, and then look at the strange and extravagant idolatry in the India of today, as seen in its pilgrimages, processions, and festivals, and at the mad and grotesque antics of the Sannyasis. Yet it is undeniable that, in all these ravings and strange gestures, there still lies deeply concealed something that accords with, or is a reflection of, that profound wisdom just mentioned. But it had to be dressed up in this form for the brutal masses. In this contrast, we have before us the two poles of mankind, the wisdom of individuals and the bestiality of the many, both of which, however, find their agreement in what is moral. Ah, who is not reminded here of the saying of the Kural: 'The common people look like human beings; but I have never seen anything like them.' (I. 1071)? The more highly cultured man may still interpret religion for himself cum grana salis; [20] the scholar, the thinker may secretly exchange it for a philosophy. Yet even here, one philosophy will not suit everybody, but, by the laws of elective affinity, each will attract that public to whose culture and mental capacity it is suited. Thus there is at all times an inferior school-metaphysics for the educated multitude and a higher for the elite. For example, even Kant's lofty teaching had to be degraded and made worse for the schools by men like Fries, Krug, Salat, and others. In short, here if anywhere, Goethe's maxim is true 'one thing will not suit everyone.' Pure faith in revelation and pure metaphysics are for the two extremes; for the intermediate stages there are also mutual modifications of the two in innumerable combinations and gradations. This is rendered necessary by the immense difference placed by nature and education between one man and another. Religions fill and rule the world and the great masses of mankind obey them. At the same time, there slowly proceeds the silent succession of philosophers who are at work on the unravelling of the great mystery for the few who, by aptitude and education, are qualified to understand them. On an average, one is produced every century; as soon as he has been genuinely discovered, he is always welcomed with exultation and listened to with attention.

PHILALETHES: This point of view seriously reminds me of the mysteries of the ancients which you have already mentioned. The intention underlying these seems to be to remedy that evil which springs from the difference in intellectual capacity and education. Their plan here was to pick out from the masses, to whom the unveiled truth was absolutely inaccessible, a few to whom such truth might be disclosed up to a certain point; from these again others were selected to whom still more could be revealed because they were capable of understanding more, and so on up to the epopts. Thus there were [x]. [21] The whole thing was based on a correct recognition of the intellectual inequality of men.

DEMOPHELES: To a certain extent, the education in our lower, middle, and high schools corresponds to the different degrees of initiation into the mysteries.

PHILALETHES: Yes, but only very approximately, and even so only as long as Latin was used exclusively for writing about the subjects of higher knowledge. But since this has ceased to be the case, all the mysteries are profaned.

DEMOPHELES: However that may be, I wanted to remind you as regards religion that you should look at it more from the practical side than from the theoretical. At all events, personified metaphysics may be the enemy of religion, yet personified morality will be its friend. Possibly the metaphysical element in all religions is false, but in all the moral element is true. This can be surmised already from the fact that in the former they clash with one another, whereas in the latter they agree.

PHILALETHES: Which furnishes an illustration of the logical rule that a true conclusion can follow from false premisses.

DEMOPHELES: Now stick to the conclusion and always bear in mind that religion has two sides. If, when looked at merely from the theoretical and thus intellectual side, it could not be valid, nevertheless from the moral it shows itself to be the means of guiding, restraining, and appeasing that race of animals who are gifted with the faculty of reason and whose kinship with the ape does not rule out that with the tiger. As a rule, religion is at the same time a sufficient satisfaction for their dull metaphysical needs. You do not seem to me to have an adequate idea of the immense difference, the wide gulf, between your man who is learned, versed in the art of thinking, and enlightened, and the dull, clumsy, sluggish, and indolent consciousness of humanity's beasts of burden. Their thoughts have once for all taken the direction of concern and interest for their own livelihood and cannot be moved in any other direction. Their muscular strength is taxed so exclusively that the nervous force which constitutes intelligence sinks to a very low ebb. Such men must have something firm to hold on to on the slippery and thorny path of life, some beautiful fable whereby things are imparted to them which their crude understanding cannot possibly imbibe except in picture and parable.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36180
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Parerga and Paralipomena: Short Philosophical Essays

Postby admin » Thu Feb 01, 2018 2:05 am

Part 2 of 4

PHILALETHES: Do you believe that justice and virtue are lies and frauds and that we must, therefore, embellish them with a tissue of fables?

DEMOPHELES: Far from it! But men must have something to which they attach their moral feelings and actions. Profound explanations and subtle distinctions are beyond them. Instead of expressing the truth of religions sensu allegorico, we might call it, like Kant's moral theology, hypotheses for a practical purpose, or introductory schemes, regulative principles, after the manner of the physical hypotheses of currents of electricity for explaining magnetism, or of atoms for explaining the proportions of chemical combinations,* and so on. We guard against establishing these as objectively true, yet we make use of them in order to establish a connection between phenomena; for, as regards the experiments and the results, they achieve approximately the same thing as does truth itself. They are the guiding stars for conduct and subjective composure during meditation. If you regard religion in this way and bear in mind that its aims are predominantly practical, and only to a limited extent theoretical, it will appear to you as worthy of the highest respect.

PHILALETHES: Such respect would, of course, ultimately rest on the principle that the end justifies the means. Yet I do not feel inclined to make a compromise on this basis. At all events, religion may be an excellent means for taming and training that perverse, obtuse, and malicious race of bipeds; but in the eyes of the friend of truth, every fraud, even though it be pious, is objectionable. Lies and falsehood would appear to be a strange means of inculcating virtue. Truth is the flag to which I have taken my oath; I shall remain faithful to it everywhere and whether or not I succeed, I shall fight for light and truth. If I see religion in the ranks of the enemy, I shall--

DEMOPHELES: But you do not find it there! Religion is no deception; it is true and the most important of all truths. But because, as I have said, its doctrines are of such a lofty nature that the masses could never grasp them directly; because, I say, its light would dazzle the ordinary eye, it appears wrapped in the veil of allegory and teaches what is not exactly true in itself but is, of course, true as regards the lofty meaning contained in it. Understood in this way, religion is the truth.

PHILALETHES: That would be all right if only religion were allowed to declare itself to be true merely allegorically. But it appears with the claim to be positively and absolutely true in the literal sense of the word. Herein lies the deception and it is here that the friend of truth must adopt a hostile attitude.

DEMOPHELES: But this is indeed a conditio sine qua non. [22] If religion were to admit that only the allegorical meaning of its teachings were in it the element of truth, it would be deprived of all effectiveness and its inestimable and beneficial influence on the hearts and morals of mankind would be lost by such rigorous treatment. And so instead of insisting on this with pedantic obstinacy, look at its great achievements in the practical sphere, in morality and kindly feeling as the guide to conduct and the support and consolation to suffering humanity in life and death. How much you will then guard against casting suspicion on something through theoretical fault-finding and thus finally wresting from the people something which for them is an inexhaustible source of consolation and relief and which they need so much in fact, with their harder lot, even more than we. For this reason it should be positively sacred and inviolable.

PHILALETHES: With that argument we could have defeated and routed Luther when he attacked the sale of indulgences. For think of how many who obtained irreplaceable consolation and complete tranquillity through tickets of indulgence so that they cheerfully and confidently died, fully trusting in a whole pack of them which they firmly held in their hands, convinced as they were that here they had so many cards of admission to all the nine heavens. What is the use of grounds of consolation and tranquillity which are constantly overshadowed by the Damocles sword of disillusion? Truth, my friend, is the only sound thing; it alone remains steadfast and staunch; its consolation alone is solid; it is the indestructible diamond.

DEMOPHELES: Yes, if you had truth in your pocket, ready to bless us with it on demand. But what you have are only metaphysical systems where nothing is certain except the headaches they cost. Before we take something away from a man, we must have something better to put in its place.

PHILALETHES: If only I did not have to hear the same thing over and over again! To free a man from an error is not to take something away from him, but to give him something; for the knowledge that something is false is just a truth. But no error is harmless; on the contrary, sooner or later, every error will land in trouble the man who harbours it. Therefore do not deceive anyone, but rather confess that you do not know what no one knows and leave everyone to form for himself his own creeds. Perhaps they will not turn out so bad, especially as they will rub off one another's corners and rectify one another. In any case, a variety of many different views lay the foundation for tolerance. But those who are endowed with knowledge and ability may take up the study of philosophers, or even themselves carry the history of philosophy a stage further.

DEMOPHELES: That, indeed, would be a fine business! A whole race of metaphysicians explaining things by the light of nature, quarrelling with one another, and eventually coming to blows!

PHILALETHES: Good gracious, a few blows here and there are the spice oflife, or at any rate a very small evil when compared with such things as priestly domination, plundering of the laity, persecutions of heretics, courts of inquisition, crusades, religious wars, massacres of St. Bartholomew, and so on. These have been the results of privileged popular metaphysics, and so I stick to the fact that we cannot expect grapes from a bramble-bush, or salvation from frauds and lies.

DEMOPHELES: How often am I to repeat that religion is anything but frauds and lies, but rather truth itself, only in the garment of myth and allegory? But as regards your plan that everyone should be his own religious founder, I still had to tell you that such a particularism was totally opposed to human nature and would, therefore, abolish all social order. Man is an animal metaphysicum; in other words, he has a predominantly strong metaphysical need. Accordingly, he sees life primarily in its metaphysical significance and wants to feel that everything is deduced therefrom. Therefore, strange as it may sound in view of the uncertainty of all dogmas, agreement in the fundamental views of metaphysics is for him the main point to the extent that a genuine and lasting community is possible only among those who in these matters are of the same opinion. As a result of this, nations are identified and differentiated much more by religions than by governments or even by languages. Accordingly, the fabric of society, the State, stands perfectly firm only when a universally acknowledged system of metaphysics serves as its foundation. Naturally, such a system can be only popular metaphysics, i.e. religion. It then becomes part and parcel of the constitution of the State, of all the communal expressions in the life of the people, and also of all the solemn acts in private life. This was the case in ancient India, among the Persians, Egyptians, and Jews, and also the Greeks and Romans; it is still the case with the Brahmans, the Buddhists, and the Mohammedans. It is true that in China there are three faiths, of which the most widespread, Buddhism, is the least cultivated by the State. In China, however, there is a saying of universal application and daily use that 'the three doctrines are only one', in other words, that in the main point they agree. The Emperor also follows all three simultaneously and in union. Finally, Europe is the confederation of Christian states; Christianity is the basis of each of its members and the common bond of all. Therefore, although Turkey is situated in Europe, she is not really reckoned as part thereof. Accordingly, the European princes are so 'by the grace of God', and the Pope is the vice-regent of God; and as his position and authority were the highest, he considered all thrones as held in fee only from him. In the same way, archbishops and bishops, as such, had temporal power, and even today have a seat and vote in the Upper House. Protestant rulers are, as such, the heads of their Churches; in England a few years ago, this was an eighteen-year-old girl. Through defection from the Pope, the Reformation upset the political structure of Europe, but in particular dissolved the real unity of Germany by abolishing the community of faith. And so after that unity had actually crumbled, it had later to be restored by artificial and purely political bonds. Thus you see how closely connected are faith and its unity with the social order of every state. Faith is everywhere the support of the laws and constitution and therefore the foundation of the social structure that could hardly continue to exist at all if religion did not lend weight to the authority of the government and to the dignity and reputation of the ruler.

PHILALETHES: Oh yes, for princes the good Lord is the Santa Claus with whom they send big children to bed when all else is of no avail; and so they think a great deal of him. Very well; meanwhile I would like to advise every ruling prince seriously and attentively to read through the fifteenth chapter of the first book of Samuel twice a year on a definite day, so that he will always have in mind what it means to establish the throne on the altar. Moreover, since the ultima ratio theologorum, [23] the stake, has gone out of use, that means of government has lost much of its effectiveness. For, as you know, religions are like glow-worms in that they need darkness in order to shine. A certain degree of general ignorance is the condition of all religions, is the only element in which they can live. On the other hand, as soon as astronomy, natural science, geology, history, knowledge of countries and peoples, spread their light everywhere and finally even philosophy is allowed to have a word, every faith founded on miracles and revelation is bound to disappear, whereupon philosophy takes its place. In Europe the day of knowledge and science dawned towards the end of the fifteenth century with the arrival of Romaic scholars; its sun rose ever higher in the very fruitful sixteenth and seventeenth centuries and dispersed the mist of the Middle Ages. To the same extent, Church and faith were bound gradually to collapse; and so in the eighteenth century English and French philosophers could stand up directly against them until finally, under Frederick the Great, Kant arrived. He deprived religious faith of the support of philosophy it had had hitherto, and emancipated this ancilla theologiae [24] in that, with German thoroughness and imperturbability, he attacked the matter, whereby it assumed a less frivolous air, yet one that was the more serious. As a result, we see Christianity in the nineteenth century greatly weakened almost completely without serious faith, and even fighting for its very existence; whereas anxious princes try to help it by means of artificial stimulants as does a doctor a dying patient by means of musk. But listen to a passage from Condorcet's Esquisse d'un tableau des progres de l'esprit humain, which seems to be written as a warning to our times: Le zele religieux des philosophes et des grands n' etait qu'une devotion politique: et toute religion qu' on se permet de defendre comme une croyance qu'il est utile de laisser au peuple, ne peut plus esperer qu'une agonie plus ou moins prolongee [25] (5th epoch). In the whole course of the events I have described, you can always observe that faith and knowledge are related as are the two scales of a balance, so that when the one goes up the other goes down. In fact, the balance is so sensitive that it indicates even momentary influences. For example, at the beginning of the nineteenth century, the predatory incursions of French hordes under the leadership of Bonaparte and the great efforts that were subsequently necessary to expel and punish that gang of robbers, had brought about a temporary neglect of the sciences and thus a certain decline in the general spreading of knowledge. When this happened, the Church at once began again to raise its head and faith immediately showed fresh signs of life which were, of course, in part only of a poetical nature, in keeping with the times. On the other hand, in the peace of more than thirty years that followed, leisure and prosperity encouraged to a rare degree the cultivation of the sciences and the spread of knowledge, the result of which, as I said, is the threatened decline and disintegration of religion. Perhaps even the time, so often prophesied, will soon come when in Europe mankind bids farewell to religion, like a child who has outgrown his nurse and whose further instruction now devolves on a private tutor. For there is no doubt that religious doctrines based merely on authority, miracles, and revelation, are an expedient that is appropriate only to the childhood of mankind. But everyone will admit that a race whose entire duration does not amount to more than about a hundred times the life of a man of sixty, according to the consistent statement of all the data of physics and history, is still in its first childhood.

DEMOPHELES: Oh if, instead of taking an undisguised pleasure at prophesying the downfall of Christianity, you would consider how infinitely grateful humanity in Europe should be to this religion which, after a long interval, followed it from its true and ancient home in the East. Through Christianity Europe acquired a tendency which had hitherto been foreign to her, by virtue of a knowledge of the fundamental truth that life cannot be an end in itself, but that the true purpose of our existence lies beyond it. Thus the Greeks and Romans had placed this purpose positively in life itself and so in this sense can certainly be called blind heathens. Accordingly, all their virtues are reducible to what is serviceable to the common welfare, to what is useful. Aristotle says quite naively: ' Those virtues must necessarily be the greatest which are the most useful to others.' ([x]. Rhetoric, lib. I, c. 9.) Thus with the ancients a love of one's country was the highest virtue, although it is really very doubtful, since narrow-mindedness, prejudice, vanity, and an understandable self-interest have a large share in it. Just before the above-mentioned passage, Aristotle enumerates all the virtues in order to explain them individually. They are justice, courage, moderation, magnificence ([x]), magnanimity, liberality, gentleness, reasonableness, and wisdom. How different from the Christian virtues! Even Plato, incomparably the most transcendent philosopher of pre-Christian antiquity, knows of no higher virtue than justice and he alone recommends it absolutely and for its own sake; whereas with all the other philosophers, the aim of all virtue is a happy life, vita beata, and morality the way to attain this. Christianity in Europe rescued humanity from this crude and shallow identification of itself with an ephemeral, uncertain, and hollow existence,

coelumque tueri
Jussit, et erectos ad sidera toltere vultus. [26]


Accordingly, Christianity preached not merely justice, but loving kindness, sympathy, compassion, benevolence, forgiveness, love of one's enemy, patience, humility, renunciation, faith, and hope. In fact it went further; it taught that the world is evil and that we need salvation. Accordingly, it preached a contempt for the world, self-denial, chastity, giving up of one's own will, that is, turning away from life and its delusive pleasures. Indeed, it taught one to recognize the sanctifying force of suffering; an instrument of torture is the symbol of Christianity. I am quite ready to admit that this serious and only correct view of life was spread in other forms all over Asia thousands of years earlier, just as it is even now independently of Christianity ; but for humanity in Europe it was a new and great revelation. For it is well known that the population of Europe consists of Asiatic races who as wanderers were driven from their homes and gradually settled in Europe. In their distant wanderings, they lost the original religion of their homeland and thus the correct view of life; and so in a new climate they then formed their own somewhat crude religions, principally the druidic, odinic, and Greek religions whose metaphysical content was insignificant and very shallow. Meanwhile, there developed among the Greeks a quite special, one might say instinctive, sense of beauty which was peculiar to them alone of all the nations that have ever existed on earth; a sense that was fine and correct. Thus in the mouths of their poets and the hands of their sculptors, their mythology assumed an exceedingly beautiful and delightful form. On the other hand, the serious, true, and deep significance of life was lost to the Greeks and Romans; they went on living like big children until Christianity came and recalled them to the serious side of life.

PHILALETHES: And to judge the result, we need only compare antiquity with the Middle Ages that followed it, say the age of Pericles with the fourteenth century. We can hardly believe that in the two instances we have before us beings of the same species. In the one case, we have the finest development of humanity, admirable state institutions, wise laws, shrewdly allotted offices, rationally regulated freedom, all the arts at their best including poetry and philosophy, the creation of works which, even after thousands of years, stand as matchless examples, almost as works of a higher order of beings whom we can never approach, and, with all this, a life embellished by the noblest fellowship as portrayed in Xenophon's Banquet. Now look at the other case, if you can. You see a time when the Church had shackled the minds, and force and violence the bodies, of men so that knights and priests could lay the entire burden of life on the third estate, their common beast of burden. There you find the right of might, feudalism and fanaticism in close alliance, and in their train shocking ignorance and mental obscurity, a corresponding intolerance, dissension in matters of faith, religious wars, crusades, persecution of heretics, and inquisitions. As the form offellowship, however, you see chivalry, a hotchpotch of roughness, coarseness, silliness, apishness with its humbug and foolery, pedantically cultivated and worked up into a system, namely its degrading superstition and apish veneration of women. Gallantry, a survival of this veneration, is paid for by well-merited feminine arrogance and provides all Asiatics with lasting material for laughter, in which the Greeks would have joined. In the golden Middle Ages, of course, the whole thing was carried to a formal and methodical service of women; it imposed deeds of heroism, cours d' amour, [27] bombastic troubadour songs, and so on, although it should be observed that these last farces, having an intellectual side, were chiefly at home in France, whereas with the dull and worldly Germans the knights distinguished themselves more by drinking and stealing. Goblets and castles were the business of these robber-barons, although at the courts there was no lack of insipid love-songs. How had the scene changed in this way? Through migration and Christianity.

DEMOPHELES: I am glad you reminded me of this. Migration was the source of the evil, and Christianity the dam on which it broke. Christianity first became the means of taming and controlling the crude and savage hordes that swarmed in through the flood of migration. The raw human being must first kneel and learn veneration and obedience; only thereafter can he be civilized. This was done in Ireland by St. Patrick and in Germany by Winfried the Saxon who became a true Boniface. It was migration, this last advance of Asiatic tribes into Europe, followed only by the fruitless attempts of those under Attila, Genghis Khan, and Timur, and, as a comic epilogue, by the gipsies, it was migration that had swept away the humanity of antiquity. But Christianity was the very principle that worked against roughness and coarseness; just as even later, throughout the Middle Ages, the Church with its hierarchy was highly necessary for setting a limit to the coarseness and barbarism of those endowed with physical force, namely the princes and knights. It became the ice-breaker of these mighty floes. Yet the aim generally of Christianity is not so much to make this life pleasant as to render us worthy of a better. It looks away over this span of time, over this fleeting dream, in order to lead us to eternal salvation. Its tendency is ethical in the highest sense of the word, a sense till then unknown in Europe, as I have shown by comparing the morality and religion of the ancients with those of the Christians.

PHILALETHES: And for a good reason, so far as theory is concerned; but look at practice! In comparison with the Christian centuries that followed, the ancients were unquestionably less cruel than the Middle Ages with their exquisite tortures and numberless burnings at the stake. Moreover, the ancients were very tolerant, had a particularly high regard for justice, frequently sacrificed themselves for their country, showed every kind of magnanimity and generosity, and such a genuine humanity that even to this day an acquaintance with their thoughts and actions is called the study of the humanities. The fruits of Christianity were religious wars, religious massacres, crusades, inquisitions, together with other courts for heretics, extermination of the original natives of America, and the introduction of African slaves in their place. Among the ancients nothing analogous to, or in any way like, them is to be found; for the slaves of the ancients, the familia, the vernae, [28] were a contented race, faithfully devoted to their master, and as different from the unfortunate Negro slaves of the sugar plantations, who are an indictment against mankind, as are their two colours. The tolerance of pederasty which was certainly reprehensible and with which we mainly reproach the morals of the ancients, is a trifle when compared with the Christian atrocities I have just named. Even among the moderns, this vice has not become anything like so rare as would appear on the surface. All things considered, can you maintain that mankind has actually become morally better through Christianity?

DEMOPHELES: If the result has not been everywhere in keeping with the purity and truth of the teaching, this may be due to the fact that such has been too noble and sublime for mankind and consequently the aim was too high. Naturally it was easier to comply with heathen and also with Mohammedan morality. But then it is precisely what is sublimest that is everywhere most open to fraud and abuse: abusus optimi pessimus. [29] And so even those lofty teachings have at times served as a pretext for the most infamous deeds and really atrocious crimes. The decline of the old state institutions as also of the arts and sciences of the Old World, is, as I have said, attributable to the invasion of foreign barbarians. Accordingly, it was inevitable that ignorance and coarseness would gain the upper hand and that, as a result, violence and fraud would seize power so that knights and priests became a burden to mankind. It is, however, explained partly from the fact that the new religion taught one to seek eternal instead of temporal salvation, preferred simplicity of heart to knowledge, and was not in favour of any worldly pleasures, even those that are contributed to by the arts and sciences. Yet in so far as the latter were of service to religion, they were encouraged and to a certain extent flourished.

PHILALETHES: In a very narrow sphere. But the sciences were untrustworthy companions and as such were kept in check. On the other hand, dearly beloved ignorance, that element so necessary to religious doctrines, was carefully cultivated.

DEMOPHELES: And yet what mankind had till then acquired in the way of knowledge and had recorded in the writings of the ancients, was rescued from destruction by the clergy alone, especially in the monasteries. What would have happened if Christianity had not appeared shortly before the migration of peoples?

PHILALETHES: It would really be an exceedingly useful inquiry to attempt to balance accurately, impartially, frankly, and dispassionately the advantages and disadvantages accruing from religions. For this, of course, a much greater mass of historical and psychological data is necessary than is available to either of us. Academies might make it the subject of a prize-essay.

DEMOPHELES: They will take good care not to do that.

PHILALETHES: I am surprised that you say that, for it is a bad sign for religions. Besides, there are also academies whose questions carry the implied condition that the prize goes to the man who best knows how to voice their views. If only a statistician could in the first place tell us how many crimes are prevented annually by religious motives, and how many by others; of the former there would be very few. For if a man feels tempted to commit a crime, it is certain that the first thing to enter his head is the punishment fixed for it and the probability of his being caught. The second point he considers is the risk to his reputation. If I am not mistaken, he will ruminate for hours on those two obstacles before any religious considerations ever occur to him. But if he gets over those first two hurdles, I think that religion alone will very rarely deter him from the crime.

DEMOPHELES: But I think that it will do so very often, especially if its influence already works through the medium of custom, so that a man at once recoils from grave misdeeds. The early impression sticks. For instance, think of the number, especially those of noble birth, who often make heavy sacrifices to fulfil a given promise, determined solely by the fact that, in their childhood, their fathers often seriously impressed on them that 'a man of honour, or a gentleman, or a cavalier, keeps his word always and inviolably.'

PHILALETHES: Without a certain innate probitas, [30] this too has no effect. Speaking generally, you should not attribute to religion what results from innate goodness of character by virtue whereof one man's sympathy for another, who would be affected by the crime, prevents him from committing it. This is the genuine moral motive and as such is independent of all religions.

DEMOPHELES: But even this seldom has any effect with the masses unless it is clothed in religious motives, whereby it is undoubtedly strengthened. Yet even without such a natural foundation, religious motives by themselves alone often prevent crime. This too need not surprise us in the case of the crowd when we see that even those of superior education are sometimes under the influence not so much of religious motives which are based, at any rate allegorically, on truth, as of the absurdest superstition and allow themselves to be guided by it throughout their lives; for instance, not undertaking anything on a Friday, not sitting down thirteen at table, obeying chance omens, and so on. If this is the case with educated men, how much more is it so with the masses? You simply cannot form an adequate conception of the extreme limitation of uncultured minds in which things look very dark especially when, as occurs only too often, a bad, unjust, and malicious heart forms the foundation. Such men who constitute the great mass of the human race, must somehow be guided and controlled for the time being, even if only by actually superstitious motives, until they become susceptible to those that are better and more correct. The direct effect of religion is testified, for example, by the fact that very often, especially in Italy, a thief arranges for stolen property to be restored through his father confessor, for the priest makes this the condition of absolution. Again, think of the oath where religion shows the most definite influence. Now it may be that a man expressly takes up the position of a merely moral being and sees himself solemnly appealed to as such; the oath seems to be taken in this way in France where the formula is merely je le jure, and also with the Quakers whose solemn yes or no is accepted instead of the oath. Or it may be that a man actually believes in the forfeiture of his eternal happiness which he expresses in this case, a belief that is then only a way of clothing the former feeling. At all events, religious conceptions are a means of rousing and drawing out his moral nature. How often it happens that false oaths are taken in the first instance, but, when it comes to the point, are suddenly rejected whereby truth and right then gain the day.

PHILALETHES: And even more often have false oaths actually been taken, whereby truth and right were trampled under foot with the clear knowledge of all the witnesses to the act. The oath is the metaphysical asses' bridge of the lawyers which they should cross as rarely as possible. But if this is unavoidable, it should be done with the greatest solemnity, never without the presence of a priest and in fact in a church or chapel adjoining the court of law. In extremely doubtful or suspicious cases, it is expedient to allow even school-children to be present. For this reason, the French abstract form of oath is of no use at all. Abstraction from what is positively given should be left to everyone's own train of thought according to the degree of his culture and education. However, you are right when you mention the oath as an undeniable example of the practical efficacy of religion. Yet in spite of all you have said, I cannot help doubting whether such efficacy goes much beyond this. Just imagine if all the criminal laws were suddenly declared by public proclamation to be abolished; I do not think that either you or I would have the courage to go home alone, even only from here, under the protection of religious motives. On the other hand, if, in the same manner, all religions were declared to be untrue, we should go on living as before under the protection of the laws alone without any special increase in our fears and our precautionary measures. But I will also tell you that religions very often have a decidedly demoralizing influence. In general, it could be said that what is added to the duties to God is withdrawn from those to humanity; for it is very easy and convenient to make amends for a want of good behaviour towards humanity by adulation for God. Accordingly, we see in all ages and countries that the majority find it much easier to obtain heaven by begging and praying than to merit it by doing good deeds. In every religion it soon comes about that the primary objects of the divine will are declared to be not so much moral actions as faith, temple ceremonies and the many different kinds of divine worship; indeed these are gradually regarded even as substitutes for moral actions, especially when they are associated with the emoluments of the priests. Animal sacrifices in the temple, having masses read, erecting chapels or roadside shrines, soon become the most meritorious works so that through them even serious crimes are expiated, as also through penance, subjection to priestly authority, confessions, pilgrimages, donations to temples and their priests, the building of monasteries, and so on. In the end, the priests thus seem to be almost the middlemen in the business with venal gods. And even if matters do not go quite so far, where is the religion whose followers do not regard at least prayers, hymns of praise, and the many different devotional exercises as at any rate a partial substitute for moral conduct? Look at England, for example, where the Christian Sunday, established by Constantine the Great in opposition to the Jewish Sabbath, is nevertheless mendaciously identified therewith by impudent priestcraft even as regards the name. This is done so that Jehovah's commands for the Sabbath, that is, the day on which the worn-out Almighty had to rest from his six days' labour (and so it is essentially the last day of the week), may be applied to the Sunday of the Christians, the dies solis, this first day that gloriously opens the week, this day of devotion and joy. In consequence of this fraud, 'Sabbath-breaking' or 'the desecration of the Sabbath', that is to say, the slightest occupation, whether for business or pleasure, all games, music, sewing, darning, and all secular works, are in England reckoned as grave sins. Surely the ordinary man must believe that, if only, as his spiritual guides impress on him, he follows 'a strict observance of the holy Sabbath and a regular attendance on divine service', in other words, if only on Sundays he idles away his time inviolably and thoroughly and does not fail to sit in church for two hours to hear the same litany for the thousandth time and to rattle it off a tempo -- that if only he does all this, he can reckon on some indulgence with regard to one thing or another which he occasionally permits himself to do. Those devils in human form, the slave-owners and slave traders in the Free States of North America (they should be called the Slave States), are, as a rule, orthodox and pious Anglicans who would regard it as a grave sin to work on Sundays and who, confident of this and of their regular attendance at church, hope for eternal happiness. The demoralizing influence of religions is, therefore, less problematical than is the moralizing. On the other hand, how great and certain would that moralizing influence have to be, to make amends for the cruelties to which religions, especially the Christian and Mohammedan, have given rise and for the misery they have brought on the world! Think of the fanaticism, the endless persecutions, then the religious wars, that bloody madness of which the ancients had no conception. Think of the crusades which were a quite inexcusable butchery and lasted for two hundred years, their battle cry being: 'It is the will of God.' Their object was to capture the grave of him who preached love, tolerance, and indulgence. Think of the cruel expulsion and extermination of the Moors and Jews from Spain; of the blood baths, inquisitions, and other courts for heretics; and also of the bloody and terrible conquests of the Mohammedans in three continents. Then think of the Christians in America whose inhabitants were for the most part, and in Cuba, entirely exterminated. According to Las Casas, twelve million people were murdered in forty years, all in majorem Dei gloriam [31] of course and for the purpose of spreading the Gospel because what was not Christian was not even regarded as human. It is true that I have previously touched on these things, but when even in our day the Neueste Nachrichten aus dem Reiche Gottes are printed, [32] we will not weary of recalling these older items of news. In particular, let us not forget India, that sacred soil, that cradle of the human race, or at any rate that part thereof to which we belong, where first Mohammedans and then Christians furiously and most cruelly attacked the followers of mankind's sacred and original faith. The ever-deplorable, wanton, and ruthless destruction and disfigurement of ancient temples and images reveal to us even to this day traces of the monotheistic fury of the Mohammedans which was pursued from Mahmud of Ghazni of accursed memory down to Aurangzeb the fratricide. These were afterwards most faithfully imitated by the Portuguese Christians through the destruction of temples as well as by the autos-da-fe of the Inquisition at Goa. Also we should not forget God's chosen people who, after they had stolen by Jehovah's express command the gold and silver vessels lent to them by their old and trusty friends in Egypt, now made their murderous and predatory attack on the 'Promised Land', with the murderer Moses at their head,* in order to tear it away from the rightful owners, by the same Jehovah's express and constantly repeated command, showing no mercy and ruthlessly murdering and exterminating all the inhabitants, even the women and children (Joshua, chaps. 10 and 11). And all this simply because they were not circumcised and did not know Jehovah. This was sufficient ground for justifying every atrocity and cruelty to them; just as for the same reason in earlier times, the infamous blackguardism of the patriarch Jacob and his chosen people towards Hamor, King of Shalem, and his people is gloriously narrated for us (Genesis 34), just because the people were unbelievers.  ** This is really the worst side of religions, namely that the believers of every religion regard themselves as justified in committing every crime against those of all the others and have, therefore, treated them with the greatest wickedness and cruelty; thus the Mohammedans against the Christians and Hindus, the Christians against the Hindus, Mohammedans, American natives, Negroes, Jews, heretics, and others. Perhaps I go too far when I say all religions, for in the interest of truth I must add that the fanatical cruelties arising from this principle are really known to us only from the followers of the monotheistic religions, thus Judaism and its two branches, Christianity and Islam. We hear nothing of the kind about Hindus and Buddhists. Although we know that in about the fifth century of our era Buddhism was driven by the Brahmans from its original home in the Indian peninsula and then spread over the whole of Asia, yet we have no definite information, as far as I know, of any crimes of violence, wars, and atrocities whereby this was carried out. This may, of course, be attributable to the obscurity in which the history of those countries is veiled; yet the extremely mild character of those religions which constantly inculcate forbearance to all living things and also the circumstance that, on account of its caste system, Brahmanism does not really allow proselytes, entitle us to hope that their followers refrained from shedding blood on a large scale and from every kind of cruelty. Spence Hardy in his admirable book, Eastern Monachism, p. 412, praises the extraordinary tolerance of the Buddhists and adds the assurance that the annals of Buddhism afford fewer instances of religious persecution than do those of any other religion. Indeed, intolerance is essential only to monotheism; an only God is by nature a jealous God who will not allow another to live. On the other hand, polytheistic gods are naturally tolerant; they live and let live. In the first place, they gladly tolerate their colleagues, the gods of the same religion, and this tolerance is afterwards extended even to foreign gods who are, accordingly, hospitably received and later admitted, in some cases, even to an equality of rights. An instance of this is seen in the Romans who willingly admitted and respected Phrygian, Egyptian, and other foreign gods. Thus it is only the monotheistic religions that furnish us with the spectacle of religious wars, religious persecutions, courts for trying heretics, and also with that of iconoclasm, the destruction of the images of foreign gods, the demolition of Indian temples and Egyptian colossi that had looked at the sun for three thousand years; all this just because their jealous God had said: 'Thou shalt make no graven image', and so on. But to return to the main point, you are certainly right in insisting on man's strong metaphysical need. Religions, however, seem to me to be not so much a satisfaction' as an abuse thereof. At any rate, we have seen that, as regards the encouragement of morality, their use is to a great extent problematical, whereas their disadvantages, and especially the atrocities that have followed in their train, are as clear as the light of day. Of course, it is quite a different matter if we take into consideration the use of religions as supports to thrones; for in so far as these are granted by the grace of God, throne and altar are intimately associated. Accordingly, every wise prince who loves his throne and family, will always appear at the head of his people as a paragon of true religious feeling, just as even Machiavelli in the eighteenth chapter of his work urgently recommends princes to cultivate religious feeling. Moreover, it might be mentioned that revealed religions are related to philosophy precisely as are sovereigns by the grace of God to the sovereignty of the people, so that the two first terms of this comparison stand in natural alliance.

DEMOPHELES: Ah, do not adopt that tone, but remember that you would thus be playing the tune of ochlocracy and anarchy, the arch-enemy of all law and order, of all civilization and humanity.

PHILALETHES: You are right; they were just sophisms, or what the fencing masters call irregular cuts; and so I retract what I said. But see how arguments can sometimes make even an honest man unjust and malicious. Therefore let us stop.


DEMOPHELES: I cannot help regretting that, after all my efforts, I have not changed your attitude with regard to religions. On the other hand, I can also assure you that all you have stated has not in the least shaken my conviction of the great value and necessity of religions.

PHILALETHES: I believe you, for as it says in Hudibras:

He that complies against his will,
Is of his own opinion still.


But I console myself with the thought that in controversies and mineral baths the after-effect is the only real one.

DEMOPHELES: Well, I wish you a blessed after-effect.

PHILALETHES: Perhaps it might be, if only I could swallow a Spanish proverb.

DEMOPHELES: What does that say?

PHILALETHES: Detras de la cruz esta el Diablo.

DEMOPHELES: What is that in plain language, you old Spaniard?

PHILALETHES: 'Behind the cross stands the devil.'

DEMOPHELES: Come, we do not want to part from each other with sarcasms. Let us rather see that religion, like Janus, or better still like Yama the Brahman god of death, has two faces and, like him, one very friendly and one very stern. Each of us has kept his eye only on one of them.

PHILALETHES: You are quite right, old chap!
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36180
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Parerga and Paralipomena: Short Philosophical Essays

Postby admin » Thu Feb 01, 2018 2:06 am

Part 3 of 4

§ 175

Faith and Knowledge

As a branch of knowledge, philosophy is not in the least concerned with what should or may be believed, but merely with what can be known. Now if this should be something quite different from what we have to believe, then this would be no disadvantage even to faith; for it is faith because it teaches what we cannot know. If we could know it, then faith would appear as something useless and ridiculous, rather like advancing a doctrine of faith in connection with mathematics.

On the other hand, it might be urged that faith can still teach more, much more, than can philosophy, yet nothing that is inconsistent with the results thereof, since knowledge is of sterner stuff than faith, so that if the two come into collision, the latter breaks.

In any case, the two are fundamentally different and, for their mutual advantage, must remain strictly separate so that each may go its own way without taking any notice of the other.

§ 176

Revelation

The ephemeral generations of human beings arise and pass away in quick succession, whilst the individuals, beset with anxiety, want, and pain, dance into the arms of death. They never weary of asking what is the matter with them and what is the meaning of the whole tragi-comic farce. They cry to heaven for an answer, but it remains silent. On the other hand, priests and parsons come along with their revelations.

Of the many hard and deplorable things in the fate of man, not the least is that we exist without knowing whence, whither, and to what purpose. Whoever has grasped and seen through the sense of this evil and is thoroughly imbued with it, will hardly be able to resist a feeling of irritation towards those who pretend to have special information about this matter, which they wish to convey to us under the name of revelations. I would like to advise these revelation-gentlemen not to talk so much at the present time about revelation, otherwise one of these days it might easily be revealed to them what revelation really is.

But whoever can seriously think that beings who were not human had ever given information concerning the existence and purpose of our race and the world, is still only a big child. There is no revelation other than the thoughts of sages, although these are subject to error, as is the lot of everything human. These are often clothed in strange allegories and myths that are then called religions. To this extent, therefore, it is immaterial whether a man lives and dies relying on his own ideas or on those of others; for they are always only human ideas and opinions in which he puts his trust. As a rule, however, men are weak and prefer to trust others who allege supernatural sources rather than rely on their own minds. Now if we keep in view the exceedingly great intellectual difference between one man and another, then to some extent the thoughts of one might well be regarded by another as revelations.

On the other hand, the fundamental secret and cunning of all priests, at all times and throughout the world, whether they be Brahmans or Mohammedans, Buddhists or Christians, are that they have rightly recognized and understood the great strength and ineradicability of man's metaphysical need. They now pretend to possess the means to satisfy this by saying that the word of the great riddle has in some extraordinary way reached them direct. Once men have been talked into this idea, the priests can guide and control them at will. And so the more prudent rulers enter into an alliance with them; the others are themselves ruled by them. But if, as the rarest of all exceptions, a philosopher ascends the throne, there arises the most embarrassing disturbance in the whole comedy.

§ 177

On Christianity

To judge this religion fairly, we must also consider what existed before it and was set aside by it. First there was Graeco- Roman paganism. Considered as popular metaphysics, it was an extremely insignificant phenomenon without any real, definite dogmatic system or any decidedly expressed ethics, in fact without any true moral tendency and sacred writings, so that it hardly merited the name of religion, but was rather a mere play of the imagination, a product of the poets from popular fairy-tales, and for the most part an obvious personification of the powers of nature. We can hardly believe that grown men ever took this childish religion seriously, yet evidence of their so doing is furnished by many passages from the ancients, especially by the first book of Valerius Maximus, but also by very many from Herodotus. Of these I will mention only those in the last book, chapter 65, where he expresses his own opinion and talks like an old woman. As time went on and philosophy progressed, this seriousness had naturally disappeared and thus it was possible for Christianity to supplant that State religion, in spite of its external supports. Yet even in the best Greek period, this State religion was certainly not taken as seriously as was the Christian in more modern times, or as are Buddhism, Brahmanism, or even Islam in Asia. Consequently, the polytheism of the ancients was something quite different from the mere plural of monotheism. This is evident from the Frogs of Aristophanes, where Dionysus appears as the most pitiable poltroon and coxcomb imaginable and is made an object of ridicule; and this play was publicly performed at his own festival, the Dionysia. The second thing that Christianity had to supplant was Judaism whose crude dogma was sublimated and tacitly allegorized by the Christian. Christianity generally is of an entirely allegorical nature; for that which in things profane is called allegory is in religions styled 'mystery'. It must be admitted that Christianity is far superior to those two earlier religions not only in morals, but even in dogmatics. In morals the teachings of caritas, gentleness, love of one's enemy, resignation, and denial of one's own will, are exclusively its own, in the West of course. What better thing can be offered to the masses who, of course, are incapable of directly grasping the truth, than a fine allegory which is perfectly adequate as a guide for practical life and as an anchor of hope and consolation? A small admixture of absurdity, however, is a necessary ingredient for such an allegory, in that it helps to indicate its allegorical nature. If the Christian dogmas are understood sensu proprio, then Voltaire is right; if, on the other hand, they are taken allegorically, they are a sacred myth, a vehicle for conveying to the people truths that would otherwise be quite beyond their reach. We might compare them to the arabesques of Raphael as well as to those of Runge, which represent the palpably unnatural and impossible, but from which a deep meaning is nevertheless expressed. Even the assertion of the Church that, in the dogmas of religion, the faculty of reason is wholly incompetent, blind, and unsound, means at bottom that these dogmas are of an allegorical nature; and so they are not to be judged by the standard that only the faculty of reason, taking everything sensu proprio, can apply. The absurdities in dogma are just the distinctive mark and sign of the allegorical and mythical; although, as in the present instance, they spring from the fact that two such heterogeneous doctrines as those of the Old and New Testaments had to be tied together. That great allegory came about only gradually on the occasion of external and chance circumstances. It was expounded under the quiet influence of a deep-lying truth whereof men were not clearly conscious, until it was perfected by Augustine. He penetrated its meaning most deeply and was then able to grasp it as a systematic whole and to make good what was missing. Accordingly, only the Augustinian doctrine, confirmed also by Luther, is perfect Christianity, not the primitive Christianity, as present-day Protestants imagine who take 'revelation' sensu proprio and, therefore, restrict it to one individual; just as it is not the seed but the fruit that is good to eat. However, the bad point of all religions is always that they dare not be openly and avowedly allegorical, but only covertly so; accordingly, they have to state their teachings in all seriousness as being true sensu proprio. Now with the essentially necessary absurdities in them, this introduces a constant deception and is a great drawback. What is even worse is that in time there comes a day when they are no longer true sensu proprio, and then they are overthrown. To this extent, it would be better for them to admit forthwith their allegorical nature; but how is one to bring home to the people that something can be simultaneously true and not true? Now as we find that all religions are more or less of such a nature, we have to acknowledge that the absurd is to a certain degree suited to the human race, is in fact an element of life, and that deception and mystification are indispensable to man, as is also confirmed by other phenomena.

An example and proof of the above-mentioned source of the absurd, springing from the combination of the Old and New Testaments, are afforded, among other things, by the Christian doctrine of predestination and grace, as elaborated by Augustine, that guiding star of Luther. In consequence of that doctrine, one man has an advantage over another in respect of grace, which then amounts to a privilege received at birth and brought ready-made into the world, and this indeed in the most important of all matters. But the offensive and absurd nature of this teaching springs merely from the Old Testament assumption that man is the work of another's will and is thereby created out of nothing. On the other hand, with regard to the fact that genuine moral qualities are actually inborn, the matter assumes quite a different and more rational significance under the Brahmanic and Buddhist assumption of metempsychosis. According to this, the advantage one man has at birth over another and thus what he brings with him from another world and a previous life, is not another's gift of grace, but the fruit of his own deeds that were performed in that other world. Connected with that dogma of Augustine's is yet another, that out of the mass of the human race, which is corrupt and depraved and is, therefore, destined to eternal damnation, only very few indeed, and these in consequence of election by grace and of predestination, are deemed righteous and therefore blessed; the rest, however, go to well-merited perdition, to the eternal torments of hell. [33] Taken sensu proprio, the dogma here is revolting; for not only does it cause a young man scarcely twenty years old to suffer endless torture, by virtue of its punishments of eternal hell, for his lapses or even his unbelief, but there is also the fact that this almost universal damnation is really the effect of original sin and thus the necessary consequence of the Fall. But in any case, this must have been foreseen by him who in the first instance had not created human beings better than they are and had then laid a trap for them into which he must have known they would fall, since all things without exception are his work and from him nothing remains hidden. Accordingly, out of nothing he had summoned into existence a feeble race subject to sin in order then to hand it over to endless torture. Finally, there is also the fact that the God who prescribes forbearance and forgiveness of every trespass and offence, even to the extent ofloving one's enemy, himself practises none of these, but rather does the very opposite. For a punishment that occurs at the end of things, when all is over and done with for all time, cannot aim either at improvement or determent and is, therefore, revenge pure and simple. But considered from this point of view, the whole race even appears to be expressly created and positively destined for eternal torment and damnation, with the exception of the few who, through election by grace, are saved, no one knows why. But apart from these, it looks as if the Almighty had created the world so that the devil should get it, in which case he would have done far better to leave things alone. So much for dogmas when they are taken sensu proprio; whereas understood sensu allegorico, all this is yet capable of an adequate explanation. In the first place, as I have said, the absurd and even revolting aspect of this teaching is merely a consequence of Jewish theism with its creation out of nothing and its really paradoxical and shocking denial, connected therewith, of the doctrine of metempsychosis, a doctrine that is natural, is to a certain extent self-evident, and so is accepted at all times by almost the entire human race with the exception of the Jews. Just to remove the colossal drawback arising from this and to tone down the revolting aspect of the dogma, Pope Gregory I in the sixth century very wisely formed the doctrine of purgatory, which is in essence already found in Origen (cf. Bayle in the article Origene, Note B), and formally incorporated it in the articles of the Church. In this way, the thing was greatly moderated and to some extent took the place of metempsychosis; for the one like the other furnishes a process of purification. With the same object, there was introduced also the doctrine of the restitution or restoration of all things ([x]) whereby in the final act of the world-comedy even the sinners, all and sundry, are restored in integrum. [34] It is only the Protestants with their stern belief in the Bible who will not be dissuaded from their eternal punishments in hell. 'Much good may it do them!' might be said by anyone in a spiteful mood. The only consolation is that they just do not believe in it, but let the matter rest for the time being, thinking in their hearts that things will not be quite so bad as that.

In consequence of his rigid systematic mind, through his strict dogmatizing of Christianity and his fixed definition of doctrines that in the Bible are only hinted at and always float on an obscure foundation, Augustine gave them such hard contours and Christianity so harsh a construction that at the present time these views cause offence and are, therefore, now opposed by rationalism in our day as they were by Pelagianism in his. For example, De civitate dei, lib. XII, c. 21, the argument taken in abstracto runs really as follows: A God creates a being out of nothing, gives him inhibitory commands, and, because these are not obeyed, tortures him throughout eternity with every imaginable agony and affliction, for which purpose he then inseparably binds body and soul (De civitate dei, lib. XIII, c. 2; c. 11 in fine and 24 in fine), in order that the torture may never through disintegration destroy this being and thus let him escape. On the contrary, he must live for ever to endure eternal torment, this poor fellow who was created out of nothing, and at any rate has a claim to his original nothing, which last retreat that in any event cannot be very bad should remain assured to him by rights as his inherited property. At any rate, I cannot help sympathizing with him. Now if in addition we take the rest of Augustine's doctrines, namely that all this does not really depend on what a man does or omits to do, but was previously settled by election through grace, then we do not know what more is to be said. Naturally our highly educated rationalists then say: 'But all this is not true and is a mere bugbear; on the contrary, we shall always make progress and rise stage by stage to ever greater perfection.' It is a pity that we did not begin earlier, for then we should already be there. But our bewilderment at such statements is still further increased when we listen meanwhile to the voice of Vanini, a wicked heretic who was burnt at the stake: Si nollet Deus pessimas ac nefarias in orbe vigere actiones, procul dubio uno nutu extra mundi limites omnia flagitia exterminaret profligaretque: quis enim nostrum divinae potest resistere voluntati? quomodo invito Deo patrantur scelera, si in actu quoque peccandi scelestis vires subministrat? Ad haec, si contra Dei voluntatem homo labitur, Deus erit inferior homine, qui ei adversatur, et praevalet. Hinc deducunt, Deus ita desiderat hunc mundum qualis est, si meliorem vellet, meliorem haberet. [35] (Amphitheatrum mundi, exercit. 16, p. 104) He had previously said on page 103: Si Deus vult peccata, igitur facti: si non vult, tamen committuntur, erit ergo dicendus improvidus, vel impotens, vel crudelis, cum voti sui compos fieri aut nesciat, aut nequeat, aut negligat. [36] At the same time, it is clear why, even at the present day, the dogma of free will is clung to mordicus, [37] although all serious and honest thinkers from Hobbes to me have rejected it as absurd, as is seen in my essay 'On the Freedom of the Will' which was awarded a prize. It was certainly easier to burn than to refute Vanini. The former was preferred after his tongue had been previously cut out; the latter is still open to anyone who may care to make the attempt, yet it must be done seriously with thoughts and ideas, not with hollow verbiage.

Augustine's conception of the exceedingly large number of sinners and of the extremely small number of those meriting eternal bliss is in itself correct. It is again found in Brahmanism and Buddhism where, however, in consequence of metempsychosis, it causes no offence. For in Brahmanism only very few indeed attain final emancipation, in Buddhism Nirvana (both are equivalent to our eternal bliss). Yet these few are not privileged, but have already come into the world with the accumulated merit of former lives, and now continue along the same path. All the rest, however, are not hurled into the eternally burning lake of fire and brimstone, but are moved only into worlds that are appropriate to their conduct. Accordingly, anyone who asked the teachers of these religions where and what all those others now are who have not attained salvation, would receive the following answer: 'Look about you and you will see them here; this is their scene of action, this is Samsara, that is, the world of craving, birth, pain, old age, sickness and death.' If, on the other hand, we understand merely sensu allegorico the Augustinian dogma in question, namely that of the very small number of the elect and the very large one of the eternally damned, in order to interpret it in the sense of our philosophy, then it agrees with the truth that certainly only a few reach the denial of the will and thus emancipation from this world (just as only a few Buddhists attain Nirvana). On the other hand, what the dogma hypostasizes as eternal damnation, is just this world of ours; this is the place to which all those others are relegated. It is bad enough; it is purgatory; it is hell and in it there is no lack of devils. Just consider what men sometimes inflict on men, with what excruciating agonies one will slowly torture another to death, and then ask yourselves whether devils could do more. Those who are not converted and persist in the affirmation of the will-to-live, will likewise stay in the world for ever.

But really, if an Asiatic were to ask me what Europe is, I should have to reply that it is that part of the world which is completely ruled by the unheard-of and incredible notion that the birth of a human being is his absolute beginning and that he has come from nothing.

Fundamentally and apart from the mythologies of the two religions, Buddha's Samsara and Nirvana are identical with Augustine's two civitates into which the world is divided, namely the civitas terrena and the civitas coelestis, as described by him in the books De civitate dei, especially lib. XIV, c. 4 et ultim.; lib. XV, c. I and 21; lib. XVIII in fine; lib. XXI, c. 1.

In Christianity the devil is an extremely necessary person as a counterpoise to Almighty God who is all-good and all-wise; for with such a God it is impossible to see how the predominant, countless, and measureless evils of the world could come about unless there were a devil to be responsible for them. Therefore since the rationalists have abolished him, the resultant drawback on the other side has made itself more and more felt, as was to be foreseen and was foreseen by the orthodox. For we cannot take away a pillar without endangering the rest of the structure. This also confirms what is ascertained in other ways, namely that Jehovah is another term for Ormuzd and Satan for Ahriman who is inseparable from him; but the name Ormuzd is itself another term for Indra.

Christianity has the peculiar disadvantage of not being, like other religions, a pure doctrine, but is essentially and mainly a narrative or history, a series of events, a complex of the facts, actions, and sufferings of individuals; and this very history constitutes the dogma, belief in which leads to salvation. Other religions, Buddhism in particular, have, of course, a historical supplement in the lives of their founders; this, however, is not part of the dogma itself, but merely accompanies it. For example, we can compare the Lalitavistara with the Gospel in so far as it contains the life of Sakya Muni, the Buddha of the present world-period. But this remains something quite separate and distinct from the dogma and so from Buddhism itself, just because the lives of previous Buddhas were also quite different and those of future Buddhas will again be quite different. Here the dogma has not by any means grown up with the life of the founder and is not based on individual persons and facts, but is universal and applies equally to all times. Therefore the Lalitavistara is not a gospel in the Christian sense, no glad tidings of a fact of salvation, but the life of him who gave instructions as to how everyone could redeem himself. It is the historical nature of Christianity that makes the Chinese scoff at the missionaries as so many story-tellers.

Another fundamental defect of Christianity to be mentioned in this connection and not to be explained away which daily manifests its deplorable consequences, is that it has most unnaturally separated man from the animal world, to which in essence he nevertheless belongs. It now tries to accept man entirely by himself and regards animals positively as things; whereas Brahmanism and Buddhism, faithful to truth, definitely recognize the evident kinship of man with the whole of nature in general and the animals in particular and represent him, by metempsychosis and otherwise, as being closely connected with the animal world. The important part played generally by animals in Brahmanism and Buddhism, compared with their total nullity in Jewish Christianity, pronounces sentence on the latter in respect of perfection, much as we in Europe may be accustomed to such an absurdity. To palliate that fundamental defect, but actually aggravating it, we find a trick which is as despicable as it is shameless and has already been censured in my Two Fundamental Problems of Ethics, 'Basis of Ethics', § 19 (7). I refer to the trick of describing in terms quite different from those used in the case of man all the natural functions which animals have in common with us and which, more than anything else, testify to the identity between their nature and ours, such as eating, drinking, pregnancy, birth, death, dead body, and so on. It is positively a vile and mean trick. Now the fundamental defect just mentioned is a consequence of creation out of nothing, according to which the Creator (Genesis 1 and 9) hands over to man all the animals, just as if they were mere things and without any recommendation to their being properly treated, such as even the seller of a dog often adds when parting with the animal he has reared. The Creator hands them over so that man may rule over them and thus may do what he likes with them; whereupon in the second chapter he appoints man as the first professor of zoology by commissioning him to give animals the names they are to bear in future. Again this is merely a symbol of their entire dependence on him, that is, of their being without any rights. Holy Ganga! mother of our race! Such stories have on me the same effect as do Jew's pitch and foetor Judaicus! The fault lies with the Jewish view that regards the animal as something manufactured for man's use. But unfortunately the consequences of this are felt even to this day because they have passed over into Christianity. For this very reason, we should give up crediting this religion with the most perfect morality. It really has a serious and fundamental imperfection in that it restricts its precepts to man and leaves the whole of the animal world without any rights. And so in protecting them from the rough and callous masses who are frequently more bestial than the beasts, the police have to take the place of religion; and since this is not enough, societies for the protection of animals are today being formed all over Europe and America. On the other hand, such would be the most superfluous thing in the world in the whole of uncircumcised Asia, where religion affords sufficient protection to animals and even makes them the subject of positive beneficence. For example, the fruits of this are seen in the large hospital for animals in Surat to which even Christians, Mohammedans, and Jews can send their sick animals. After a successful cure, however, such people are very rightly not allowed to take them away again. In the same way, whenever a Brahman or Buddhist has a piece of personal good fortune, he does not proceed to rattle off a Te Deum, but goes to the market-place to buy birds in order to open their cages at the city-gates. There are frequent opportunities for observing this in Astrakhan where the followers of all religions meet; and they do a hundred similar things. On the other hand, look at the revolting and outrageous wickedness with which our Christian mob treat animals, laughing as they kill them without aim or object, maiming and torturing them, and even working the very marrow out of the poor bones of their old horses who are their direct bread-winners, until they sink and succumb under the lashes. It might truly be said that men are the devils of this earth and animals the tortured souls. These are the consequences of that installation scene in the Garden of Paradise. For the mob can be got at only by force or religion; but here Christianity leaves us shamefully in the lurch. I heard from a reliable source that, when asked by a society for the protection of animals to preach a sermon against cruelty to them, a Protestant clergyman replied that, with the best will in the world, he could not do so because in this matter religion gave him no support. The man was honest and right. In a circular dated 27 November 1852, the very laudable Munich society for the protection of animals endeavours, with the best intentions, to quote from the Bible 'precepts preaching consideration for animals', and mentions Proverbs 12:10; Ecclesiasticus 7:24; Psalms 147:9; 104:14; Job 38:41; Matthew 10:29. But this is only a pious fraud that reckons on our not turning up the passages; only the first well-known passage says something relevant, although it is weak. The others, it is true, speak of animals, but not of consideration for them. What does the first passage say? 'A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast.' 'Regardeth the life'! What an expression! One is merciful to a sinner or an evil-doer, but not to an innocent faithful animal who is often his master's bread-winner and gets nothing but his bare fodder. Merciful indeed! We owe to the animal not mercy but justice, and the debt often remains unpaid in Europe, the continent that is so permeated with the foetor Judaicus that the obvious and simple truth 'the animal is essentially the same as man' is an offensive paradox.* The protection of animals is, therefore, left to the police and to societies formed for the purpose, but these can do very little against that widespread ruffianism of the mob, where it is a question of poor things who cannot complain and in a hundred cases of cruelty hardly one comes to light, especially as the punishments are too lenient. Flogging was recently suggested in England and this seems to me to be a thoroughly suitable punishment. Yet what can we expect from the masses when there are scholars and even zoologists who, instead of acknowledging the identity (intimately known to them) of the essential natures of man and animal, are bigoted and narrow-minded enough to carryon a heated controversy with honest and reasonable colleagues who put man in the proper animal class or demonstrate the great similarity between him and the chimpanzee and orang-utan? But it is really revolting when in his Scenen aus dem Geisterreich, vol. ii, Sc. I, p. 15, the pious Jung- Stilling with his exceedingly Christian turn of mind adduces the following comparison: 'Suddenly the skeleton shrivelled up into the indescribably hideous form of a dwarf, just as does a large garden spider when we bring it into the focus of a burning-glass and its pus-like blood now hisses and boils in the glowing heat.' And so this man of God perpetrated such an infamous deed or calmly watched it, which in this case amounts to the same thing; in fact he sees so little wrong in it that he tells us about it quite casually and calmly! These are the effects of the first chapter of Genesis and generally of the whole Jewish way of looking at nature. With the Hindus and Buddhists, on the other hand, the Mahavakya (the great word) 'tat tvam asi' (this art thou) applies and is always to be expressed over every animal in order that we may have before us, as a guide to our conduct, the identity of his inner nature and ours. Go away from me with your most perfect of all moral systems!

When I was a student at Gottingen, Blumenbach in his lectures on physiology spoke very seriously to us about the horrors of vivisection and pointed out to us what a cruel and shocking thing it was. He therefore said that it should very rarely be resorted to and only in the case of very important investigations that are of direct use. But it must then be done with the greatest publicity in the large lecture-hall after an invitation has been sent to all the medical students, so that the cruel sacrifice on the altar of science may be of the greatest possible use. Every quack, however, now considers himself entitled to carry out in his torture-chamber the cruellest tortures on animals in order to decide problems whose solution has long since appeared in books, but which he is too lazy and ignorant to look up. Our doctors no longer receive, as they did formerly, a classical education which endowed them with a certain humanity and a touch of nobility. Nowadays, they go off as soon as possible to the university, where they want to learn to be medicine-men, and then have a good time in the world.

Here the French biologists appear to have set the example and the Germans vie with them in inflicting on innocent animals, often in large numbers, the cruellest tortures in order to settle purely theoretical and often very futile questions. I will now illustrate this with a few examples which have particularly disgusted me, although they are by no means isolated cases; on the contrary, a hundred similar instances could be enumerated. In his book Uber die Ursachen der Knochenformen (1857), Professor Ludwig Fick of Marburg reports that he removed the eye-balls of young animals to obtain a confirmation for his hypothesis through the fact that the bones now grow into the cavities! (See Central Blatt of 24 October 1857.)

Deserving of special mention is the atrocity, perpetrated in Nuremberg by Baron von Bibra and reported by him tanquam re bene gesta [38] to the public with inconceivable naivete in his Vergleichende Untersuchungen uber das Gehirn des Menschen und der Wirbelthiere (Mannheim, 1854, pp. 131 ff.). He deliberately arranged for the death by starvation of two rabbits in order to carry out a useless and superfluous research as to whether the chemical constituents of the brain underwent a change in their proportions through death by starvation! For the benefit of science, n' est-ce-pas? Does it never occur to these gentlemen of the scalpel and crucible that they are human beings first and chemists afterwards? How can we sleep in peace while harmless animals from the mother's breast are kept under lock and key to suffer a slow and agonizing death by starvation? Do we not have a nightmare in our sleep? And is this not happening in Bavaria where, under the auspices of Prince Adalbert, the admirable and highly eminent councillor Perner is setting the whole of Germany a brilliant example in his defence of animals against cruelty and brutality? Is there no society in Nuremberg affiliated with the highly beneficial one that is active in Munich? If Bibra's cruel act could not be prevented, was it left unpunished? At any rate, anyone who has still as much to learn from books as has that von Bibra, should remember that to extort the final answers on the path of cruelty* is to put nature on the rack in order to enrich his knowledge, to extort her secrets which have probably long been known. For such knowledge there are still many other innocent sources without his having to torture to death poor helpless animals. What in all the world has the poor harmless rabbit done that it should be seized and sacrificed to the torture of a slow death by starvation? No one is justified in practising vivisection who does not already know and understand all that is to be found in books on the question under investigation.

It is obviously high time that in Europe Jewish views on nature were brought to an end, at any rate as regards animals, and that the eternal essence, living in all animals as well as in us, be recognized as such and treated with consideration and respect. Bear this in mind and remember that it is seriously meant and that not one word will be withdrawn, even if you were to cover with synagogues the whole of Europe! A man must be bereft of all his senses or completely chloroformed by the foetor Judaicus, not to see that, in all essential respects, the animal is absolutely identical with us and that the difference lies merely in the accident, the intellect, not in the substance which is the will. The world is not a piece of machinery and animals are not articles manufactured for our use. Such views should be left to synagogues and philosophical lecture-rooms which in essence are not so very different. On the other hand, the above knowledge furnishes us with the rule for the correct treatment of animals. I advise the zealots and parsons not to say much against it here, for this time on our side we have not only truth, but also morality.*

The greatest benefit of railways is that millions of draught-horses are spared a miserable existence.

It is unfortunately true that the human being who has been driven northwards and whose skin has thus become white requires animal food, although there are vegetarians in England. But the death of the animals we eat should be rendered quite painless by the administration of chloroform and of a swift blow on the lethal spot. We should do this not out of' the righteous man's regard for the life of his beast' as the Old Testament expresses it, but from our bounden duty to the eternal essence that lives in all animals as it lives in us. All animals to be slaughtered should be chloroformed beforehand; this would be a noble course to follow and an honour to mankind. Here the higher scientific knowledge of the West would go hand in hand with the higher morality of the East, since Brahmanism and Buddhism do not limit their precepts to 'one's neighbour', but take under their protection 'all living beings'.

In spite of all Jewish mythology and the intimidation of priests, the immediate and certain truth that is self-evident to everyone whose mind is not crazy and fuddled through foetor Judaicus, must ultimately gain acceptance and can no longer be suppressed, even in Europe. I refer to the truth that animals are in all essential respects identical with us and that the difference lies merely in the degree of intelligence, i.e. cerebral activity, the latter also admitting of great differences between the various species of animals. In this way, we shall see a more humane treatment of animals. For only when that simple and undoubtedly sublime truth has reached the masses will animals cease to appear as creatures without rights, and thus be exposed to the malicious whim and cruelty of every coarse ruffian; and only then will it not be open to any medical quack to put to the test every odd and eccentric caprice of his ignorance by the most horrible tortures on numberless animals, as happens at the present time. It must be acknowledged, of course, that animals are now in most cases chloroformed and are thus spared pain during the operation, after which they can be dispatched by a quick death. This method, however, is necessarily excluded in the case of operations which are performed on the activity of the nervous system and its sensitiveness and which are now so frequent, for the very thing to be observed would thus be stopped. Alas the animal most frequently taken for vivisection is morally the noblest of all, the dog, who is, moreover, rendered more susceptible to pain by his highly developed nervous system.*

The unconscionable treatment of animals must be stopped in Europe. The Jewish view of the animal world must, on account of its immorality, be expelled from Europe. What is more obvious than that we and the animals are to all intents and purposes absolutely the same? To fail to recognize this, a man must be bereft of all his senses, or rather he will not see, since to him a gratuity is more acceptable than truth.

§ 178

On Theism

Just as polytheism is the personification of the individual parts and forces of nature, so is monotheism that of the whole of nature, at one stroke.

When I try to imagine that I am standing before an individual being to whom I say: 'My Creator, at one time I was nothing, but you have brought me forth so that I am now something and indeed I am I'; and I add: 'I thank you for this benefit'; and finally say: 'If I have been worthless and good-for-nothing, it is my fault'-then I must confess that, in consequence of philosophical and Indian studies, my mind has become incapable of sustaining such an idea. Moreover, this is the counterpart to what Kant presents to us in the Critique of Pure Reason (in the section 'Of the Impossibility of a Cosmological Proof'): 'We cannot suppress or support the idea that a being whom we picture as the highest among all possible beings, should say to himself: "I am from eternity to eternity, there is nothing beside me except that which is something merely through my will; but whence am I?'" Incidentally, this last question, just like the whole of the above-mentioned section, has not prevented professors of philosophy since Kant's time from making the Absolute, or in plain language, that which has no cause, the constant and main theme of all their philosophizing. This is for them a really good idea. Speaking generally, these men are incurable and I cannot too often advise the reader to waste no time on their writings and lectures.

It is all the same whether we make an idol out of wood, stone, or metal, or make it up from abstract concepts. It remains idolatry, the moment we have before us a personal being to whom we make sacrifices and whom we invoke and thank. At bottom it is not so different whether we sacrifice our sheep or our inclinations. Every form of worship or prayer is incontestable evidence of idolatory. And so the mystical sects from all religions agree in abolishing for their adepts all forms of worship.

§ 179

The Old and New Testaments

Judaism has as its fundamental characteristics realism and optimism which are closely related and are the conditions of theism proper. For this regards the material world as absolutely real and life as a pleasant gift bestowed on us. Brahmanism and Buddhism, on the other hand, have as their fundamental characteristics idealism and pessimism, for they assign to the world only a dreamlike existence and regard life as the consequence of our guilt. In the doctrine of the Zendavesta whence, as we know, Judaism has sprung, the pessimistic element is represented by Ahriman. But in Judaism he has only a subordinate position as Satan who is nevertheless, like Ahriman, the author and originator of snakes, scorpions, and vermin. Judaism at once makes use of him to correct its fundamental error of optimism, namely for the Fall, which now introduces into that religion the pessimistic element that is required in the interests of the most obvious and palpable truth and is its most correct fundamental idea; although it transfers into the course of existence what must be represented as underlying and preceding it.

A striking confirmation that Jehovah is Ormuzd is furnished by the first book of Ezra in the Septuagint, thus [x] (6: 24), omitted by Luther: 'Cyrus the king had a house of the Lord built at Jerusalem, where sacrifices are made to him through the perpetual fire.' Also the second book of the Maccabees, chapters 1 and 2 and 13:8, shows that the religion of the Jews was that of the Persians, for it is narrated that the Jews who were led away into Babylonian captivity had, under the guidance of Nehemiah, previously concealed the consecrated fire in a dried-out cistern, where it went under water and was later rekindled through a miracle, to the great edification of the Persian king. Like the Jews, the Persians also abhorred the worship of images and, therefore, never presented the gods in that form. (Spiegel, Uber die Zendreligion, also tells us of the close relationship between the Zend religion and Judaism, but thinks that the former comes from the latter.) Just as Jehovah is a transformation of Ormuzd, so is Satan the corresponding transformation of Ahriman, that is, the adversary or opponent, namely ofOrmuzd. (Luther has' opponent' where the Septuagint has' Satan', e.g. I Kings II: 23.) It appears that the service of Jehovah originated under Josiah with the assistance of Hilkiah, in other words, it was acquired from the Parsecs and completed by Ezra on the return from the Babylonian exile. For up till the time of Josiah and Hilkiah and also under Solomon, there obviously prevailed in Judaea natural religion, Sabianism, the worship of Belus, of Astarte, and others. (See the books of the Kings on Josiah and Hilkiah.) *

Incidentally, as confirmation of the origin of Judaism from the Zend religion, it may be mentioned that, according to the Old Testament and other Jewish authorities, the cherubim are creatures with the head of a bull on which Jehovah is mounted. (Psalms 99: I. In the Septuagint, 2 Kings 6:2 and 22:11; bk. 4, 19:15: [x].) 39 Such animals, half-bull, half-man, also half-lion, are very similar to the description of Ezekiel (chapters 1 and 10), and are found on pieces of sculpture in Persepolis, but especially among the Assyrian statues found in Mosul and Nimrod. Even in Vienna, there is a carved stone representing Ormuzd riding such a bull-cherub. Particulars of this are to be found in the Wiener Jahrbucher der Litteratur, September 1833, Records of Travels in Persia. Moreover, the detailed explanation of that origin has been furnished by J. G. Rhode in his book, Die heilige Sage des Zendvolks. All this sheds light on the genealogical tree of Jehovah.

The New Testament, on the other hand, must somehow be of Indian origin, as is testified by its thoroughly Indian ethics which carries morality to the point of asceticism, by its pessimism and its avatar. It is precisely through these that it is definitely and diametrically opposed to the Old Testament, so that there was only the story of the Fall to provide a link which could connect the two. For when that Indian teaching found its way into the Promised Land, there arose the problem of uniting Jewish monotheism and its [x] [40] with the knowledge of the corruption and desolation of the world, of its need for deliverance and redemption through an avatar, together with a morality of self-denial and repentance. And a solution to the problem was as far as possible successful, namely to the extent that two such different and even antagonistic doctrines could be united.

As ivy needs support and something to hold on to, it twines round a rough-hewn post, everywhere adapting itself to the irregular shape and reproducing this, yet clothing the post with life and grace, so that we are presented with a pleasant sight instead of the bare post. In the same way, Christ's teaching that has sprung from Indian wisdom has covered the old and quite different trunk of crude Judaism and what had to be retained of the original form is changed by that teaching into something quite different, true and alive. It appears to be the same, but is something really different.

Thus the Creator, who creates out of nothing and is separate from the world, is identified with the Saviour and through him with mankind. He stands as their representative, for in him they are redeemed, just as they had fallen in Adam and had since been entangled in the bonds of sin, corruption, suffering, and death. For here, as well as in Buddhism, the world manifests itself as all this, no longer in the light of Jewish optimism that had found 'all things very good' ([x]). On the contrary, the devil himself is now called the 'prince of this world', [x] (John 12:31 ), ruler of the world. The world is no longer an end, but a means; the kingdom of eternal joys lies beyond it and beyond death. Renunciation in this world and the direction of our hopes to a better are the spirit of Christianity. But the way to such a world is opened by reconciliation i.e. by salvation from our world and its ways. In morality the command to love one's enemy takes the place of the right to retaliate, the promise of eternal life replaces the promise of innumerable progeny, and instead of a visitation of the sins of the father on the children unto the third and fourth generations, we have the Holy Spirit that overshadows and shelters all.

Thus we see the doctrines of the Old Testament rectified and given a fresh interpretation by those of the New, whereby an essential and fundamental agreement with the ancient religions oflndia is brought about. Everything that is true in Christianity is found also in Brahmanism and Buddhism. But in these two religions we shall search in vain for the Jewish view of a being who has sprung from nothing and is endowed with life, of a thing produced in time which cannot be humble enough in its thanks and praises to Jehovah for an ephemeral existence full of misery, worry, and want. For in the New Testament the spirit of Indian wisdom can be scented like the fragrance of a bloom which has been wafted over hills and streams from distant tropical fields. On the other hand, from the Old Testament there is nothing corresponding to this except the Fall which had to be added at once as a corrective to optimistic theism and to which the New Testament was attached. For the Fall is the only point which offers itself to the New Testament and on to which it can hold.

Now just as for a thorough knowledge of a species that of its genus is required, the latter itself, however, being again known only in its species, so for a thorough understanding of Christianity, a knowledge is required of the other two world-denying religions, Brahmanism and Buddhism; moreover, as sound and accurate a knowledge as possible. For just as in the first place Sanskrit gives us a really thorough understanding of Greek and Latin, so do Brahmanism and Buddhism enable us to understand Christianity.

I even cherish the hope that biblical scholars familiar with Indian religions will one day come forward and be able to demonstrate through very special features the relationship of these to Christianity. Meanwhile, I draw attention merely tentatively to the following. In the Epistle of James (James 3: 6), is the expression 'the course of nature', [x] (literally' the wheel of generation and birth') which has always been a crux interpretum. [41] But in Buddhism the wheel of metempsychosis is a very familiar conception. In Abel Remusat's translation of the Foe Kue Ki, it says on p. 28: la roue est l'embteme de la transmigration des ames, qui est comme un cercle sans commencement ni fin; p. 179: la roue est un embleme familier aux Bouddhistes, il exprime le passage successif de l' ame dans le cercle des divers modes d'existence. On page 282 the Buddha himselfsays: qui ne connait pas la raison, tombera par le tour de la roue dans la vie et la mort. [42] In Burnouf's Introduction a l'histoire du Bouddhisme, vol. i, p. 434, we find the significant passage: Il reconnut ce que c'est que la roue de la transmigration qui porte cinq marques, qui est a la fois mobile et immobile; et ayant triomphe de toutes les voies par lesqeulles on entre dans le monde, en les detruisant, etc. [43] In Spence Hardy's Eastern Monachism (London, 1850), we read on page 6: 'Like the revolutions of a wheel, there is a regular succession of death and birth, the moral cause of which is the cleaving to existing objects, whilst the instrumental cause is karma (action).' See also pages 193 and 223, 224, of the same work. Also in Prabodha Chandrodaya (Act IV, Sc. 3) it says: 'Ignorance is the source of Passion who turns the wheel of this mortal existence.' In the description of Buddhism by Buchanan according to the Burmese texts (in the Asiatic Researches, vol. vi, p. 181), it says of the constant arising and passing away of successive worlds that' the successive destructions and reproductions of the world resemble a great wheel, in which we can point out neither beginning nor end.' (The same passage, only longer, appears in Sangermano's Description of the Burmese Empire, Rome, 1833, p. 7.)*

According to Graul's glossary, Hansa is a synonym for Sannyasi. Possibly the name Johannes (from which we get Hans) might be connected with it (and with his sannyasi-life in the wilderness).

A wholly external and accidental resemblance of Buddhism to Christianity is that it no longer prevails in the land of its origin; and so both are bound to say: [x] (vates in propria patria honore caret). [44]

If, to explain that agreement with Indian doctrines, we wished to indulge in conjectures of all kinds, we could assume that the gospel note on the flight to Egypt was based on something historical; that Jesus was educated by Egyptian priests whose religion was of Indian origin and from whom he had accepted Indian ethics and the notion of an avatar; and that he subsequently had endeavoured to adapt these to the Jewish dogmas in his own native land and to graft them on to the ancient stem. It might be supposed that a feeling of his own moral and intellectual superiority had finally induced him to regard himself as an avatar and accordingly to call himself the Son of Man in order to indicate that he was more than a mere human being. It is even conceivable that, with the intensity and purity of his will and in virtue of the omnipotence generally associated with the will as thing-in-itself and known to us from animal magnetism and the magic effects connected therewith, he had been able to perform miracles so called, in other words, to act by means of the metaphysical influence of the will. In this case, the instruction given by the Egyptian priests would have stood him in good stead. Legend would then have amplified and exaggerated these miracles. For a miracle proper would be everywhere a dementi [45] that nature gave herself.** Meanwhile, only on such assumptions can we to some extent explain how Paul, whose chief epistles must indeed be genuine, can in all seriousness represent as God incarnate and as identical with the world-creator one who at the time was so recently deceased that many of his contemporaries were still alive. For apotheoses of this nature and magnitude, which are otherwise seriously meant, require many centuries for their gradual maturity. On the other hand, we could advance an argument against the genuineness of the Pauline Epistles as a whole.

I might conclude that in general our gospels are based on something original or at any rate on a fragment from the time and associations of Jesus himself precisely from the objectionable prophecy of the end of the world and of the glorious return of the Lord in the clouds, which were to take place even in the lifetime of some who were present when the promise was made. That this promise remained unfulfilled is an exceedingly annoying circumstance which not only gave offence in later times, but already caused embarrassment to Paul and Peter. This is discussed in detail in the eminently readable book by Reimarus entitled Vom Zwecke Jesu und seiner Junger, §§ 42-4. Now if the gospels had been written some hundred years later without existing contemporary documents, one would have taken good care not to introduce prophecies whose objectionable non-fulfilment was at that time already quite evident. Just as little would one have introduced into the gospels all those passages whence Reimarus very shrewdly construes what he calls the first system of disciples and according to which Jesus was for them only a temporal deliverer of the Jews, unless the authors of the gospels had worked on the basis of contemporary documents that contained such passages. For even a merely oral tradition among the faithful would have shed some things which would land the faith in difficulties. Incidentally, Reimarus has inexplicably overlooked the passage John 11:48 (to be compared with 1:50 and 6:15) which is above all favourable to his hypothesis, likewise Matthew 27: 28-30, Luke 23: 1-4, 37, 38, and John 19: 19-22. But if we wished seriously to assert this hypothesis and follow it up, we should have to assume that the religious and moral elements in Christianity were put together by Alexandrian Jews acquainted with Indian and Buddhist doctrines, and that a political hero with his melancholy fate was then made the point of contact with those doctrines, in that the originally earthly Messiah was transformed into a heavenly. But there is certainly very much to be said against this. Nevertheless, the mythical principle, advanced by Strauss for the explanation of the gospel story, certainly remains the correct one, at any rate for the details thereof; and it will be difficult to make out how far the principle extends. Generally with regard to what is mythical, we must explain it from examples that lie nearer at hand and are less doubtful. Thus, for instance, in the whole of the Middle Ages, in France as well as in England, King Arthur is a remarkable figure, firm, assertive, and very active, who appears always with the same character and the same retinue. With his Round Table, his knights, his unprecedented deeds of heroism, his eccentric seneschal, his faithless spouse and her Lancelot of the Lake, and so on, he has for centuries formed the constant theme of poets and writers of fiction. All these authors present us with the same persons having the same characters, and even in the events they agree fairly well; only in the costumes and manners do they differ markedly from one another, namely in accordance with the age in which each of them lived. Some years ago, the French Ministry sent M. de la Villemarque to England to inquire into the origin of the myths of this King Arthur. As regards the fundamental facts, the result was that, at the beginning of the sixth century, there lived in Wales a petty chieftain named Arthur who persistently fought the Saxon invaders but whose trivial deeds are, however, forgotten. From this there emerged, heaven knows why, a splendid figure, celebrated throughout many centuries in innumerable songs, romances, and novels. See Contes populaires des anciens Bretons, avec un essay sur l' origine des epopees sur la table ronde, by Th. de la Villemarque, two volumes, 1842; also The Life of King Arthur from Ancient Historians and Authentic Documents by Ritson, 1825, in which he appears as a remote, indistinct, and nebulous figure, yet not without a real core. It is almost exactly the same with Roland, who is the hero of the entire Middle Ages and is celebrated in innumerable songs, epic stories, and works of fiction, and even by the Pillars of Roland, until finally he furnishes Ariosto with his material and thence rises transfigured. Now this is mentioned by history only on one solitary occasion and in three words, namely that Einhard reckons him to be one of the notabilities who remained at Roncevaux as Hroudlandus, Britannici limitis praefectus; [46] and this is all we know of him. In the same way, all that we really know of Jesus Christ is the passage in Tacitus (Annals, lib. xv, c. 44). Yet another example is afforded by the Cid, the world-famous Spaniard, who is glorified by legends and chronicles, but above all by folk-songs in the famous and very beautiful Romancero, and finally also by Corneille's best tragedy. Here, too, in the main events, they agree fairly well, especially as regards Chimene. On the other hand, the meagre historical data tell us nothing about him except to say that he was a bold and gallant knight and distinguished leader, but of a very cruel, treacherous, and even mercenary character, serving one side and then the other, and more often the Saracens than the Christians, almost like a condottiere, yet wedded to a Chimene. Details can be seen in Recherches sur l'histoire de l'Espagne, by Dozy, 1849, vol. i, who appears to be the first to arrive at the correct source. What indeed may be the historical foundation of the Iliad? In fact, to go fully into the matter, let us recall the anecdote about Newton and his apple the groundlessness of which I discussed in § 86; yet is has been repeated in a thousand books. Even Euler, in the first volume of his Letters to a German Princess, did not fail to paint the story con amore. If generally it should be a matter of great importance with regard to all history, then our race must not be given, as it unfortunately is, to such infernal lying.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36180
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Parerga and Paralipomena: Short Philosophical Essays

Postby admin » Thu Feb 01, 2018 2:06 am

Part 4 of 4

§ 180

Sects

Augustinism with its dogma of original sin and everything connected therewith is, as I have said, the real Christianity easily understood. Pelagianism, on the other hand, is the attempt to reduce Christianity to crude and shallow Judaism with its optimism.

The contrast between Augustinism and Pelagianism which permanently divides the Church, could be traced to its ultimate ground, namely to the fact that the former speaks of the essence-in- itself of things, whereas the latter speaks of the phenomenon, taking this, however, to be the essence. For example, the Pelagian denies original sin, for he argues that the child who has not yet done anything at all must be innocent. Thus he does not see that, as a phenomenon, the child certainly does begin to exist, but not as a thing-in-itself. It is the same as regards the freedom of the will, the expiatory death of the Saviour, grace, in short, everything. In consequence of its obvious and shallow nature, Pelagianism always predominates, now more than ever as rationalism. The Greek Church is moderated in a Pelagian sense and likewise, since the Concilium Tridentinum, [47] the Catholic, which thereby endeavoured to set itself up in opposition to the Augustinian, and thus mystically minded, Luther, and also to Calvin. To the same extent, the Jesuits are semi-Pelagian. On the other hand, the Jansenists are Augustinian and their point of view might well be the most genuine form of Christianity. For since Protestantism has rejected celibacy and generally asceticism proper as well as the representatives thereof, namely the saints, it has become a blunted, or rather disjointed, Christianity with its point broken off; it ends in nothing.*

§ 181

Rationalism

The centre and heart of Christianity consist of the doctrine of the Fall, original sin, the depravity of our natural state, and the corruption of man according to nature. Connected with this are intercession and atonement through the Redeemer, in which we share through faith in him. But Christianity thus shows itself to be pessimism and is, therefore, diametrically opposed to the optimism of Judaism as also of Islam, the genuine offspring thereof; on the other hand, it is related to Brahmanism and Buddhism. In Adam all have sinned and are damned; whereas in the Saviour all are redeemed. This also expresses that the real essence and true root of man reside not in the individual, but in the species which is the (Platonic) Idea of man, the individuals being merely the phenomenal appearance of that Idea spread out in time.

The fundamental difference in religions is to be found in the question whether they are optimism or pessimism, certainly not whether they are monotheism, polytheism, Trimurti, Trinity, pantheism, or atheism (like Buddhism). For this reason, the Old and New Testaments are diametrically opposed and their amalgamation forms a queer centaur. The Old Testament is optimism, the New pessimism. As previously shown, the former comes from the doctrine of Ormuzd, the latter, according to its inner spirit, is related to Brahmanism and Buddhism and so, in all probability, can somehow be historically derived therefrom. The former is in the major key, the latter in the minor. The only exception in the Old Testament is the Fall, but there it remains unused like an hors d'oeuvre until Christianity again takes it up as its only suitable point of contact.

But our present-day rationalists, following in the footsteps of Pelagius, use all their efforts to obliterate the above-mentioned fundamental characteristic of Christianity which Augustine, Luther, and Melanchthon had very accurately interpreted and systematized as far as they could. They endeavour to do away with exegesis in order to reduce Christianity to an insipid, egoistical, optimistic Judaism with the addition of a better morality and future life, as is required by an optimism that is consistently maintained. This is done so that the splendour and delight may not too quickly come to an end, and death may be put off which cries out all too loudly at the optimistic view of things and, like the marble statue, comes ultimately to the happy and cheerful Don Juan. These rationalists are honest men, yet they are trite and shallow fellows who have not an inkling of the profound meaning of the New Testament myth and cannot go beyond Jewish optimism. They understand this, and it is to their liking. They want the naked dry-as-dust truth both in the historical and the dogmatic. We can compare them to the euhemerism of antiquity. What the supernaturalists offer us is, of course, fundamentally a mythology; but this is the vehicle of profound and important truths which could not in any other way be brought within the reach of the understanding of the masses. On the other hand, how remote these rationalists are from all knowledge, indeed from every inkling, of the meaning and spirit of Christianity, is shown, for example, by their great apostle Wegscheider in his naive Institutiones theologiae christianae dogmaticae where (§ 115 with notes and remarks) he does not scruple to set up Cicero's dull and shallow twaddle in the books De officiis in opposition to the profound utterances of Augustine and the reformers concerning original sin and the essential depravity of man as met with in nature; for such twaddle is much more to his taste. One must really marvel at the naivete and simplicity with which this man displays his dryness, shallowness, and even total lack of insight into the spirit of Christianity. But he is only unus e multis. [48] Bretschneider has removed original sin from his exegesis of the Bible, whereas original sin and salvation constitute the essence of Christianity. On the other hand, it is undeniable that the supernaturalists are occasionally something much worse, namely priests in the worst sense of the word. May Christianity then see how it is to steer between Scylla and Charybdis. The common error of the two sides is that in religion they look for the plain, dry, literal, and unvarnished truth. But only philosophy aspires to this, Religion has only a truth that is suited to the people, one that is indirect, symbolical, and allegorical. Christianity is an allegory that reflects a true idea, but in itself the allegory is not what is true. To assume this, however, is the error into which both supernaturalists and rationalists fall. The former try to maintain that the allegory in itself is true; the latter model it and give it a fresh interpretation until it can be true in itself according to their standard. Each side accordingly disputes with the other and uses pertinent and powerful arguments. The rationalists say to the supernaturalists: 'Your doctrine is not true.' The supernaturalists retort: ' Your doctrine is not Christianity', and both are right. The rationalists imagine that they take reason [Vernunft] as their standard, but in point of fact they take for this purpose only reason that is restricted and confined to the assumptions of theism and optimism, something like Rousseau's Profession de foi du vicaire Savoyard, this prototype of all rationalism. Thus of the Christian dogma they will admit nothing except what they regard as true sensu proprio, namely theism and the immortal soul. But if, with the effrontery of ignorance, they appeal here to pure reason, we must serve them up with the Critique of Pure Reason in order to force them to the view that these dogmas of theirs, which have been selected for retention as rational, are based merely on a transcendent application of immanent principles and accordingly constitute only an uncritical, and hence untenable, philosophical dogmatism. On every page the Critique of Pure Reason opposes this, and shows it to be quite futile; and so its very title proclaims its antagonism to rationalism. Accordingly, whereas supernaturalism has allegorical truth, no truth at all can be attributed to rationalism. The rationalists are quite wrong. Whoever wishes to be a rationalist must be a philosopher and, as such, emancipate himself from all authority; he must go forward and shrink from nothing. But if he wants to be a theologian, then he must be consistent and not abandon the foundation of authority, even when this calls on him to believe the incomprehensible and inexplicable. One cannot serve two masters; and so it must be either reason or holy scripture. Juste milieu [49] here means falling between two stools. Either believe or philosophize! Whatever is chosen must be entirely accepted. To believe up to a certain point and no further and likewise to philosophize up to a certain point and no further-these are half-measures that constitute the fundamental characteristics of rationalism. On the other hand, the rationalists are morally justified in so far as they go to work quite honestly and deceive only themselves; whereas the supernaturalists, with their claim of truth sensu proprio for a mere allegory, often try to mislead others intentionally. Yet by their efforts, the truth contained in the allegory is saved, whereas in their northern humdrum dullness the rationalists throw this out of the window and with it the whole essence of Christianity. In fact, they ultimately arrive step by step at the stage to which Voltaire had soared eighty years ago. It is often amusing to see how, when fixing the attributes of God (his quidditas or essence), where the mere word and shibboleth' God' no longer suffice, those rationalists carefully aim at hitting the juste milieu between a human being and a force of nature; which is, of course, very difficult. Moreover, in this struggle between rationalists and supernaturalists, the two parties obliterate each other, as did the armed men from the dragon's teeth sown by Cadmus. Here from a certain direction active hypocrisy deals the matter its death-blow. Thus just as in the carnivals of Italian cities crazy masks are seen running about among matter-of-fact people who are seriously going about their business, so too in Germany we now see Tartuffes or religious hypocrites flocking among the philosophers, physicists, historians, critics, and rationalists, in the garb of a period that is already centuries in the past; and the effect is burlesque, especially when they harangue.

Those who imagine that the sciences can go on progressing and become ever more widespread, without this preventing religion from lasting and flourishing eternally, labour under a grave error. Physics and metaphysics are the natural foes of religion which is, therefore, their enemy and strives at all times to suppress them, just as they endeavour to undermine it. It is positively ridiculous to attempt to speak of peace and harmony between the two; it is a bellum ad internecionem. [50] Religions are the offspring of ignorance who do not long survive their mother. Omar indeed understood this when he burnt the Alexandrian library, his reason being that the contents of the books were either contained in the Koran or were superfluous. This excuse is regarded as silly, but it is very shrewd if only it is understood cum grana salis, [51] where he then states that if the sciences go beyond the Koran, they are the enemies of religions and so are not to be tolerated. It would be much better for Christianity if the Christian rulers had been as cunning as Omar. However, it is now a little too late to burn all books, to abolish academies, and to chill to the marrow universities with a pro ratione voluntas, [52] in order to bring mankind back to where it stood in the Middle Ages. For with a handful of obscurantists nothing can be done; today we see them like men who want to put out the light in order to steal. For it is obvious that nations are gradually thinking of shaking off the yoke of faith; the symptoms of this are seen everywhere, although in each country they are differently modified. The cause is too much knowledge that has spread among them. Knowledge of every kind which daily increases and in all directions becomes ever more widely diffused, broadens to such an extent everyone's horizon, according to his range, that it is bound in the end to reach a size at which the myths that constitute the skeleton of Christianity shrink so that faith can no longer cling to them. Mankind outgrows religion just as it does the clothes of childhood; there is no stopping it; the garment is splitting and bursting. Faith and knowledge in the same mind do not go well together; they are like a wolf and a sheep in one fold, and of course knowledge is the wolf that threatens to devour its neighbour. We see religion in its death-agony cling to morality for which it would like to pass itself off as the mother; but this will not do at all! Genuine morals and morality are not dependent on any religion, although every religion sanctions them and thereby affords them support. Driven in the first instance from the middle classes, Christianity takes refuge in the lowest where it appears as a conventicle institution, and in the upper, where it is a matter of politics; but we should bear in mind that here Goethe's words apply:

We feel intention and are put out of tune.

-- Tasso, II. 1.


Here Condorcet's passage mentioned in § 174 will again suggest itself to the reader.

Faith is like love; it cannot be forced. It is, therefore, a hazardous undertaking to try to introduce or establish it by measures of state. For just as the effort to force love engenders hatred, so does the attempt to force belief result in a positive unbelief.* Only quite indirectly and thus by preparations carried out well in advance can faith be developed and encouraged, that is, by our preparing for it a good soil in which it will thrive; such a soil is ignorance. Therefore in England, from very early times down to our own, care has been taken that two-thirds of the nation are unable to read; and so to this day there prevails in that country a blind and implicit faith such as we should look for in vain elsewhere. But if even in England the government takes public instruction out of the hands of the clergy, it will soon be all over with the faith. And so generally through being constantly undermined by the sciences, Christianity is gradually approaching its end. Meanwhile, there might be some hope for it from the reflection that only those religions perish which have no scriptures. The religion of the Greeks and Romans, those world-powers, has perished. The religion of the contemptible little Jewish race, on the other hand, has been preserved; and in the same way that of the Zend people is preserved among the Guebres. The religions of the Gauls, Scandinavians, and ancient Germans, on the contrary, have disappeared. Brahmanism and Buddhism, however, continue to exist and flourish; they are the oldest of all the religions and have full and detailed scriptures.

§ 182

A religion which has as its foundation a single event, and in fact tries to make the turning-point of the world and of all existence out of that event that occurred at a definite time and place, has so feeble a foundation that it cannot possibly survive, the moment men come to reflect on the matter. How wise in Buddhism, on the other hand, is the assumption of the thousand Buddhas, lest it appear as in Christianity, where Jesus Christ has redeemed the world and no salvation is possible without him; but four thousand years, whose monuments exist in Egypt, Asia, and Europe in all their greatness and glory, could not know anything of him, and those ages with all their glories went to the devil without ever seeing him! The many Buddhas are necessary because at the end of each kalpa the world perishes and with it the teaching, so that a new world requires a new Buddha. Salvation always exists.

That civilization is at its highest level among Christian nations is due not to Christianity's being favourable to it, but to the fact that that religion has declined and now has little influence. So long as it had influence, civilization was very backward, as for instance in the Middle Ages. On the other hand, Islam, Brahmanism, and Buddhism still have a decisive influence on life; in China the influence is still at a minimum and so the civilization there is somewhat like that in Europe. All religion is antagonistic to culture.

In previous centuries religion was a forest behind which armies could halt and take cover. The attempt to repeat this in our day has met with a sharp rebuff. For after so many fellings, it is now only scrub and brushwood, behind which rogues and swindlers occasionally hide themselves. We should, therefore, beware of those who would like to drag it into everything and should meet them with the proverb previously quoted: detras de la cruz esla el diablo. [53]

______________

Notes:

1 ['I dispute the conclusion (of the syllogism).']

2 ['May truth endure and the world perish over it.']

3 ['May justice come to pass and the world perish over it.']

4 ['May pills be made and the world perish over them.']

5 ['With a grain of salt'.]

6 ['It is impossible for the crowd to be philosophically enlightened.']

7 Illustrations of the History and Practice of the Thugs, London, 1837; also Edinburgh  Review, Oct.-Jan. 1836-7.
 
8 Cf. § 115.
 
9 ['Assuredly the philosophers have nothing plausible to offer on this matter; it is, therefore, necessary to go back to God, angels, and demons.']

10 ['First live, then philosophize.']

11 [' We curb and restrain souls with deceptive and misleading words when true ones are of no avail.']

12 [Goethe's Faust, Pt. I, Bayard Taylor's translation.]

13 ['Instance to the contrary'.]

14 ['Gods of the larger families or tribes'.]

15 [' Freedom is a mystery.']

16 ['It is impossible for the crowd to be philosophically enlightened.']

17 ['Fraud'.]

18 ['Pious fraud'.]

19 ['Simplicity is the seal of truth.']

20 ['With a grain of salt'.]

21 ['The small, greater, and greatest mysteries'.]

* Even the poles, equator, and parallels in the firmament are of this nature; in  the heavens there is nothing like these, for the heavens do not revolve.

22 ['Absolutely necessary condition'.]

23 ['The ultimate argument of theologians'.]

24 ['Handmaid of theology'.]

25 ['The religious zeal of philosophers and great men was only a political devoutness; and every religion we venture to defend, as a faith which it is useful to let the people have, can no longer hope for anything but a more or less prolonged death-struggle.']

26 ['And caused it to look to heaven and to raise its eyes to the stars. (Ovid, Metamorphoses, I. 85-6.)]

27 [By this phrase Schopenhauer may have meant 'love-making'. However, he  may have had in mind a meaning mentioned in Robert, Dictionnaire alphabetique et  analogique de la langue francaise: a provencal society dealing with and judging on  questions of courtly love.)

28 ['Dependants'; 'slaves born in the house'.]

29 ['The worst is the abuse of the best.']

30 ['Probity, integrity'.]

31 ['For the greater glory of God'.]

32 A periodical reporting on the achievements of the missionaries. Its fortieth annual number appeared in 1856.

* Tacitus (Historiae, lib. v, c. 2) and Justinus (lib. XXXVI, c. 2) have handed down to us the historical basis of the Exodus, the reading of which is as instructive as it is entertaining and from which we may infer how matters are with regard to the historical basis of the other books of the Old Testament. In the passage quoted, we see that Pharoah would no longer tolerate in Egypt proper the Jewish people, a sneaking dirty race afflicted with filthy diseases (scabies) that threatened to prove infectious. He therefore had them put on board ship and dumped on the Arabian coast. It is true that a detachment of Egyptians was sent after them, not to bring back the precious fellows who had been deported, but to recover from them what they had stolen; thus they had stolen from the temples the golden vessels. Who would lend anything to such a rabble? It is also true that the above-mentioned detachment was annihilated by a natural event. On the coast of Arabia there was great scarcity, principally of water. Then a bold and venturesome fellow appeared, and offered to procure everything if they would follow and obey him. He said he had seen wild asses, and so on. I regard this as the historical basis, since it is obviously the prose on which the poetry of the Exodus was built. Although Justinus (i.e. Trogus Pompeius) here commits a monstrous anachronism (that is, according to our assumptions that are based on the Exodus), this does not disturb me, for to me a hundred anachronisms are still not so questionable as a single miracle. We see also from the two Roman authors how much the Jews were at all times and by all nations loathed and despised. This may be due partly to the fact that they were the only people on earth who did not credit man with any existence beyond this life and were, therefore, regarded as cattle, as the dregs of humanity, but as past masters at telling lies.

** Whoever wants to know, without understanding Hebrew, what the Old Testament is, must read it in the Septuagint which is the most accurate, most genuine, and at the same time finest of all translations; for it has an entirely different tone and colour. The style of the LXX is for the most part noble and naive; nor has it anything ecclesiastical and there is no trace of anything Christian. Compared with it, the Lutheran translation appears to be both vulgar and bigoted; it is often inaccurate, sometimes intentionally, and maintains throughout a canonical and devotional tone. In the above-mentioned passages, Luther has ventured to make qualifications that could be called falsifications; thus where he puts' verbannen' (exile), the Greek word is [x] [murdered, killed], and so on.

Moreover, the impression left on me after studying the LXX is one of cordial affection and deep veneration for the [x] [the great King Nebuchadnezzar], although he was somewhat too lenient with a people whose God gave or promised them their neighbours' lands. They then obtained possession of these by murder and rapine, and there erected a temple to God. May every people, whose God makes neighbouring countries' lands of promise', find their Nebuchadnezzar in good time and their Antiochus Epiphanes as well, and may they be treated without any more ceremony!

33 See Wiggers's Augustinismus und Pelagianismus, p. 335.

34 [' To their original state of perfection '.]

35 ['If God did not want the worst and meanest actions to haunt the world, he would undoubtedly with a wave of the hand drive away and banish all deeds of infamy from the limits of the world; for who of us can resist the divine will? How can we assume that crimes would be committed against the will of God if, when a sin is committed, he endows criminals with the strength to commit it? If, however, man commits an offence without God's willing it, then God is weaker than man who opposes him and has the power to do so. From this it follows that God wants to have the world as it is, for if he wanted a better world, he would have a better.'

36 ['If God wills sins, it is he who commits them; if he does not will them, they are nevertheless committed. Consequently, it must be said of him that he is either improvident, or impotent, or cruel. For he neither knows how, nor is able, nor cares, to carry out his decree.']

37 ['Frantically', 'with might and main'.]

* In their exhortations the societies for the protection of animals are for ever  using the bad argument that cruelty to animals leads to cruelty to human beings,  as though man were a direct object of moral duty, the animal being merely indirect,  in itself a mere thing.' For shame! (See The Two Fundamental Problems of  Ethics, 'Basis of Ethics', §§ 8 and 19 (7).)

* For instance, he carries out detailed investigations on the ratio of the weight of the brain to that of the rest of the body; whereas since Sommering with clear insight discovered it, it is generally known and not in dispute that we have to estimate the weight of the brain not in relation to that of the whole body but to that of the rest of the nervous system. (Cf. Blumenbach, Institutiones physiologicae, edit. quart., 1821, p. 173. First learn something and then join in the discussion. This is meant incidentally for all those fellows who write books that prove nothing but their ignorance.) Obviously this requires preliminary knowledge which we should have before we undertake experimental investigations on the brains of human beings and animals. But, of course, it is easier to torture poor animals slowly to death than to learn something.

38 ['As though he had made out a very good case'.]

* They send missionaries to the Brahmans and Buddhists to inspire them with the  'true faith'; but when these men hear how animals are treated in Europe, they have  the deepest loathing for Europeans and their religious doctrines.
 
* A word on cruelty to the chained-up dog, man's only true companion and most  faithful friend, the most splendid conquest he ever made, as Fr. Cuvier says. This  highly intelligent creature with fine feelings is, like a criminal, tied up on a chain  where from morning till night he experiences the constantly renewed and never  satisfied longing for freedom and movement and his life is a slow torment! Through  such cruelty he ultimately ceases to be a dog and is changed into a loveless, savage,  faithless animal, a cringing creature trembling at the sight of the devil man. I  would sooner have the dog stolen from me than always be confronted with such  suffering whereof I was the cause. (See my remarks on Lord - and his chained-up  dog, § 153.) All caged birds are also a scandalous and stupid cruelty. It should be  forbidden and here too the police should take the place of humanity.
 
* Could the otherwise inexplicable favour, which was shown (according to Ezra) by Cyrus and Darius to the Jews whose temple they allowed to be restored, be due possibly to the fact that the Jews, who in Babylon had hitherto worshipped Baal, Astarte, Moloch, and others, adopted Zoroastrianism after the victory of the Persians and now served Ormuzd under the name of Jehovah? In support of this is the fact that Cyrus prays to the God of Israel, which would otherwise be absurd (I Ezra 2:3 in the Septuagint). All the preceding books of the Old Testament are composed later and thus after the Babylonian captivity, or at any rate the Jehovah doctrine is inserted at a later date. Moreover, from I Ezra 8 and 9, we become acquainted with the most infamous side of Judaism. Here the conduct of the chosen people is in keeping with the revolting and iniquitous example of Abraham their ancestor. Just as he expelled Hagar with Ishmael, so were the women, whom the Jews had married during the Babylonian captivity, turned adrift with their children, because they were not of Moses' stock. Anything more infamous can hardly be imagined, unless perhaps that villainy of Abraham is invented to cover up the greater infamy of the whole race.

39 ['(Lord God of Israel) which dwellest between the cherubims.' (2 Kings 19: 15).]
 
40 ['(And God saw) every thing (that he had made, and, behold, it) was very good.' (Genesis 1:31.)]
 
41 ['A difficulty for commentators'.]

42 ['The wheel is the emblem of the transmigration of souls which is like a circle without beginning and end ... The wheel is an emblem familiar to Buddhists; it expresses the soul's successive passage in the circle of different forms of existence ... He who is unacquainted with the truth will lapse through the turning of the wheel into life and death.']

43 ['He recognized what is the wheel of transmigration which has five marks and is at the same time mobile and immobile; and after he had triumphed over all the paths by which one enters the world in that he destroyed them .... ']
 
* Manu, XII. 124. Sancara, p. 103. Obry, Nirvana; pp. 30 and 31 he says: 'La transmigration porte en Sanscrit le nom vague de Samsara, cercle ou mouvement circulaire des naissances.' ['Transmigration has in Sanskrit the vague name of Samsara, circle or circular movement of births.']

** For the masses miracles are the only arguments they understand; and so all founders of religions perform them.

Scriptures contain miracles for the purpose of authenticating their contents; but there comes a time when they produce the opposite effect.

The gospels tried to support their credibility through the account of miracles, but in this way they undermined their authenticity.

The miracles in the Bible should demonstrate its truth, but they have the opposite effect.

Theologians try either to allegorize the miracles of the Bible or to put them on a natural footing in order somehow to be rid of them. For they fed that miraculum sigillum mendacii. ['A miracle is a sign of falsehood. ']

44 ['A prophet hath no honour in his own country.' (John 4:44.)]

45 ['Denial', 'contradiction'.]
 
46 ['Hrouland, commander of the British border district'.]
 
* In Protestant churches the most conspicuous object is the pulpit, in Catholic, the altar. This symbolizes that Protestantism appeals in the first instance to the understanding, whereas Catholicism appeals to faith.

47 ['Council of Trent' (1545-63).]

48 ['One of many'.]

49 ['The happy mean'.]
 
50 ['War of life and death'.]

51 ['With a grain of salt'.]

52 [' My will (to do something) is my reason (for doing it).']

* What a bad conscience religion must have can be judged from the fact that it is forbidden under pain of heavy penalties to deride and make fun of it.

European governments forbid every attack on the established religion. They themselves, however, send to the countries of Brahmanism and Buddhism missionaries who zealously attack those religions root and branch, to make room for their own imported religion. And then they yell and raise an outcry when a Chinese emperor or a mandarin of Tunkin chops off the heads of such people.

53 ['Behind the cross stands the devil.']
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36180
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Parerga and Paralipomena: Short Philosophical Essays

Postby admin » Thu Feb 01, 2018 8:12 pm

CHAPTER 16: Some Remarks on Sanskrit Literature

§ 183

Much as I admire and respect the religious and philosophical works of Sanskrit literature, only rarely have I been able to find any pleasure in the poetical works. Indeed, at times it seemed to me that these were as inelegant and monstrous as is the sculpture of the same peoples. Even their dramatic works I appreciate mainly on account of the most instructive elucidations and verifications of the religious belief and morals which they contain. All this may be due to the fact that, by its very nature, poetry is untranslatable. For in it thoughts and words have grown together as firmly and intimately as pars uterina et pars loetalis placentae, [1] so that we cannot substitute foreign equivalents for the words without affecting the ideas. Yet all metre and rhyme are in reality a compromise between language and thought; but by its nature such a compromise can be carried out only on the native soil of the thought, not on the foreign ground to which it might be transplanted, and certainly not on one as barren as are usually the minds of translators. After all, what greater contrast can there be than that between the free effusion of a poet's inspiration which already appears clothed automatically and instinctively in metre and rhyme and the translator's painful, cold, and calculating distress as he counts the syllables and looks for the rhymes? Moreover, as there is now in Europe no lack of poetical works that directly appeal to us, but a very great dearth of correct metaphysical views, I am of the opinion that translators from Sanskrit should devote their efforts much less to poetry and much more to the Vedas, Upanishads, and philosophical works.

§ 184

When I consider how difficult it is, with the aid of the best and most carefully trained scholars and of the excellent philological resources achieved in the course of centuries, to arrive at a really precise, accurate, and vivid appreciation of Greek and Roman authors whose languages are those of our predecessors in Europe and are the mothers of tongues still living ; when, on the other hand, I think of Sanskrit as a language spoken in remote India thousands of years ago and that the means for learning it are still relatively very imperfect; finally, when I consider the impression made on me by the translations from Sanskrit of European scholars, apart from very few exceptions, then I am inclined to suspect that perhaps our Sanskrit scholars do not understand their texts any better than do the fifth-form boys of our own schools their Greek texts. Since, however, these scholars are not boys but men of knowledge and understanding, it is possible that on the whole they make out fairly well the sense of what they really understand, whereby much may, of course, creep in ex ingenio. [2] It is even much worse with regard to the Chinese of European sinologists who often grope about in total darkness. Of this we are convinced when we see how even the most painstaking correct one another and demonstrate one another's colossal mistakes. Instances of this kind are frequently found in the Foe Kue Ki of Abel Remusat.

On the other hand, when I reflect that Sultan Mohammed Dara Shikoh, brother of Aurangzeb, was born and brought up in India, was a scholar and thinker, and craved for knowledge; that he, therefore, probably understood Sanskrit as well as we understand Latin; and that, in addition, a number of the most learned pundits collaborated with him, this predisposes me to a high opinion of his Persian translation of the Upanishads of the Veda. Further, when I see with what profound veneration, in keeping with the subject, Anquetil-Duperron handled this Persian translation, rendering it word for word into Latin, accurately keeping to the Persian syntax in spite of the Latin grammar, and content merely to accept the Sanskrit words left untranslated by the Sultan in order to explain these in a glossary, I read this translation with the fullest confidence, which is at once delightfully confirmed. For how thoroughly redolent of the holy spirit of the Vedas is the Oupnekhat! How deeply stirred is he who, by diligent and careful reading, is now conversant with the Persian-Latin rendering of this incomparable book! How imbued is every line with firm, definite, and harmonious significance! From every page we come across profound, original, and sublime thoughts, whilst a lofty and sacred earnestness pervades the whole. Here everything breathes the air of India and radiates an existence that is original and akin to nature. And oh, how the mind is here cleansed and purified of all Jewish superstition that was early implanted in it, and of all philosophy that slavishly serves this! With the exception of the original text, it is the most profitable and sublime reading that is possible in the world; it has been the consolation of my life and will be that of my death. With regard to certain suspicions that have been raised about the genuineness of the Oupnekhat, I refer to my Two Fundamental Problems of Ethics, 'Basis of Ethics', § 22, second footnote.

Now if I compare this with the European translations of sacred Indian texts or of Indian philosophers, then (with very few exceptions, such as the Bhagavadgita by Schlegel and some passages in Colebrooke's translations from the Vedas) these have the opposite effect on me. They furnish us with periods whose sense is universal, abstract, vague, and often indefinite, and which are disjointed and incoherent. I get a mere outline of the ideas of the original text with little pieces of padding, wherein I notice something foreign. Contradictions appear from time to time and everything is modern, empty, dull, flat, destitute of meaning, and occidental. It is Europeanized, Anglicized, Frenchified, or even (what is worst of all) enveloped in a fog and mist of German. Thus instead of furnishing us with a clear and definite meaning, they give us mere words that are diffuse and high-sounding. For example, even the most recent by Roer in the Bibliotheca Indica, No. 41, Calcutta, 1853, is one where we really recognize the German who, as such, is already accustomed to writing one period after another and then leaves it to others to think in them something clear and definite. Only too often is there in them also a trace of the foetor Judaicus. All this lessens my confidence in such translations especially when I remember that the translators pursue their studies as a profession, whereas the noble Anquetil-Duperron did not seek a living here, but was urged to undertake this work merely through love of science and knowledge. I also reflect that Sultan Dara Shikoh's reward was to have his head cut off by his imperial brother Aurangzeb, in majorem Dei gloriam. [3] I am firmly convinced that a real knowledge of the Upanishads and thus of the true and esoteric dogmas of the Vedas, can at present be obtained only from the Oupnekhat; we may have read through the other translations and yet have no idea of the subject. It also appears that Sultan Dara Shikoh had at his disposal much better and more complete Sanskrit manuscripts than had the English scholars.

§ 185

The Sanhita of the Veda certainly cannot be by the same authors or from the same period as that of the Upanishad. Of this we are fully convinced when we read the first book of the Sanhita of the Rig- Veda, translated by Rosen and that of the Sama-Veda translated by Stevenson. Thus both consist of prayers and rituals that breathe a somewhat crude Sabianism. Here Indra is the supreme god who is invoked and with him the sun, moon, winds, and fire. The most servile adulations, together with requests for cows, food, drink, and victory, are repeated to these in all the hymns, and for this purpose sacrifices are made to them. These and donations to the priests are the only virtues that are commended. As Ormuzd (from whom Jehovah subsequently came) is really Indra (according to 1.J. Schmidt) and moreover Mithra is the sun, so the fire worship of the Guebres came to them with Indra. The Upanishad is, as I have said, the product of the highest human wisdom and is intended only for learned Brahmans; and so Anquetil renders 'Upanishad' by the words secretum tegendum. [4] The Sanhita, on the other hand, is exoteric; although indirectly it is for the people, since its contents are liturgy and thus public prayers and sacrificial rituals. Accordingly, the Sanhita affords us exceedingly insipid reading, to judge from the specimens already mentioned. For in his essay On the Religious Ceremonies if the Hindus, Colebrooke has certainly translated hymns from other books of the Sanhita, which breathe a spirit akin to the Upanishad, in particular the fine hymn in the second essay: 'The Embodied Spirit', and so on, a translation of which I gave in § 115.

§ 186

At the time when the great rock-temples were being cut in India, the art of writing had possibly not yet been invented and the numerous bands of priests dwelling in them were the living receptacles of the Vedas, of which each priest or each school knew a portion by heart and handed it down, as was done by the Druids. Later the Upanishads were composed in those very temples and thus in the most dignified surroundings.

§ 187

The Samkhya philosophy which is regarded as the forerunner of Buddhism, and which in Wilson's translation we have before us in extenso in the Karika of Ishvara Krishna (although always through a cloud on account of the imperfection of even this translation), is interesting and instructive. For the principal dogmas of all Indian philosophy, such as the necessity for salvation from a tragic existence, transmigration according to deeds, knowledge as the fundamental condition of salvation, and so on, are presented to us in all their fullness and completeness and with that lofty earnestness with which they have been considered in India for thousands of years.

Nevertheless, we see the whole of this philosophy impaired by a false fundamental idea, namely the absolute dualism between Prakriti and Purusha. But this is also the very point wherein the Samkhya differs from the Vedas. Prakriti is evidently the natura naturansS and at the same time matter in itself, in other words, without any form, such as ismerely conceived and not intuitively perceived. So understood, it can be regarded as actually identical with the natura naturans in so far as it gives birth to everything. Purusha, however, is the subject of knowing; for it is the mere spectator who is inactive and perceives. Yet the two are now taken to be absolutely different from, and independent of, each other, whereby the explanation why Prakriti toils and struggles for the salvation of Purusha proves to be inadequate (1.60). Further, in the whole work, it is taught that the salvation of Purusha is the final goal; on the other hand, it is suddenly Prakriti that is to be saved (II. 62, 63). All these contradictions would disappear if we had a common root for Prakriti and Purusha to which everything pointed, even in spite of Kapila; or if Purusha were a modification of Prakriti, thus if somehow or other the dualism were abolished. To give any sense and meaning to the thing, I can see nothing but the will in Prakriti and the subject of knowing in Purusha.

A peculiar feature of pedantry and narrowness in the Samkhya is the system of numbers, the summation and enumeration of qualities and attributes. This, however, appears to be customary in India, for the very same thing is done in the Buddhist scriptures.

§ 188

The moral meaning of metempsychosis in all Indian religions is not merely that in a subsequent rebirth we have to atone for every wrong we commit, but also that we must regard every wrong befalling us as thoroughly deserved through our misdeeds in a former existence.

§ 189

That the three upper castes are called twice born may yet be explained, as is usually suggested, from the fact that the investiture with the sacred thread which is conferred on the youths of those castes when they come of age is, so to speak, a second birth. But the real reason is that only in consequence of great merits in a previous life does a man come to be born in those castes; and that he must, therefore, have existed in such a life as a human being. On the other hand, whoever is born in a lower caste, or even in the lowest, may have previously been even an animal.

You laugh at the aeons and kalpas of Buddhism! Christianity, of course, has taken up a standpoint, whence it surveys a brief span of time. Buddhism's standpoint is one that presents it with the infinity of time and space, which then becomes its theme.

Just as the Lalitavistara, to begin with, was fairly simple and natural, but became more complicated and supernatural with every new edition it underwent in each of the subsequent councils, so did the same thing happen to the dogma itself whose few simple and sublime precepts gradually became jumbled, confused, and complicated through detailed discussions, spatial and temporal representations, personifications, empirical localizations, and so on. For the minds of the masses like it so, in that they want to indulge in fanciful pursuits and are not satisfied with what is simple and abstract.

The Brahmanistic dogmas and distinctions of Brahm and Brahma, of Paramatma and Jivatma, Hiranya-Garbha, Prajapati, Purusha, Prakriti, and the like (these are admirably and briefly expounded in Obry's excellent book Du Nirvana indien 1856), are at bottom merely mythological fictions, made for the purpose of presenting objectively that which has essentially and absolutely only a subjective existence. For this reason, the Buddha dropped them and knows of nothing except Samsara and Nirvana. For the more jumbled, confused, and complex the dogmas became, the more mythological they were. The Yogi or Sannyasi best understands who methodically assumes the right posture, withdraws into himself all his senses, and forgets the entire world, himself included. What is then still left in his consciousness is primordial being. But this is more easily said than done.

The depressed state of the Hindus, who were once so highly cultured, is the result of the terrible oppression which they suffered for seven hundred years at the hands of the Mohammedans who tried forcibly to convert them to Islam. Now only one-eighth of the population of India is Mohammedan. (Edinburgh Review, January 1858.)

§ 190

The passages lib. III, c. 20 and lib. VI, c. II in the Life of Apollonius of Tyana are also indications that the Egyptians (Ethiopians), or at any rate their priests, came from India. It is probable that the mythology of the Greeks and Romans is just as remotely related to the Indian as are Greek and Latin to Sanskrit, and as is the Egyptian mythology to both. (Is Coptic from the Japhetic or Semitic group of languages?) Zeus, Poseidon, and Hades are probably Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva. The latter has a trident whose object is unexplained in the case of Poseidon. The Nile key, crux ansata, [6] the sign of Venus [x], is just the lingam and yoni of the followers of Shiva. Osiris or Isiris is possibly Ishvara, Lord and God. Egyptians and Indians worshipped the lotus.

Might not Janus (about whom Schelling* gave a university lecture and whom he declared to be the primary and original One) be Yama the god of death who has two and sometimes four faces? In time of war the portals of death are opened. Perhaps Prajapati is Japheth.

The goddess Anna Purna of the Hindus (Langles, Monuments de l' Hindoustan, vol. ii, p. 107) is certainly the Anna Perenna of the Romans. Baghis, a nickname of Shiva, reminds one of the seer Bakis (ibid., vol. i, p. 178). In the Sakuntala (Act VI, end p. 131) the name Divespetir occurs as a nickname of Indra; this is obviously Diespiter. [7]

There is much to be said in favour of the identity of the Buddha with Woden; according to Langles (Monuments, vol. ii) Wednesday (Wodensday) is sacred to [x] Mercury and the Buddha. Corban, in the Oupnekhat sacrificium, occurs in St. Mark 7:11: [x] ([x]), Latin: Corban, i.e. munus Deo dicatum. [8] But the following is the most important. The planet [x] Mercury is sacred to the Buddha, is to a certain extent identified with him, and Wednesday is Buddha's day. Now Mercury is the son of Maya, and Buddha was the son of Maya the Queen. This cannot be pure chance! 'Here lies a minstrel' say the Swabians. See, however, Manual of Budhism, p. 354, note, and Asiatic Researches, vol, i, p. 162.

Spence Hardy (Eastern Monachism, p. 122) reports that the robes that are to be presented to the priests at a certain ceremony must be woven and made up in one day. Herodotus, lib. II, c. 122, gives a similar account of a garment that is presented to a priest on a ceremonial occasion.

The autochthon of the Germans is Mannus; his son is Tuiskon. In the Oupnekhat (vol. ii, p. 347, and vol. i, p. 96) the first human being is called Man.

It is well known that Satyavrati is identical with Menu or Manu, and, on the other hand, with Noah. Now the father of Samson is Manoah (Judges 13); Manu, Manoah, Noah; the Septuagint has [x] and [x]. Might not Noe be exactly the same as Manoe with the omission of the first syllable?

Among the Etruscans Jupiter was called Tina (Moreau de Jones at the Academy of Moral and Political Science, December 1850). Perhaps this might be connected with the Chinese Tien. The Etruscans had the Anna Perenna of the Hindus.

All these analogies are thoroughly investigated by Wilford and Burr in the Asiatic Researches.

_______________

Notes:

1 ['The part of the uterus and the part of the foetus in the placenta'.]

2 ['From natural talent'.]

3 ['For the greater glory of God'.]

4 ['A secret to be concealed.' (The real meaning of' Upanishad' is 'confidential secret meeting'.)]

5 ['Creating nature'. (Term used by Spinoza and other philosophers.)]

6 ['Cross provided with a ring'; 'ansate cross'.]

* Schelling's explanation of Janus (in the Berlin Academy) is that he signifies 'chaos as primary unity'. A much more thorough explanation is given by Walz, De religione Romanorum antiquissima, (in the prospectus of Tubingen University) 1845.

7 [Jupiter.]

8 ['Corban, that is to say, a gift' (An Aramaic word inserted by the Persian translators and not occurring in the Sanskrit text).]
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36180
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Parerga and Paralipomena: Short Philosophical Essays

Postby admin » Thu Feb 01, 2018 8:28 pm

CHAPTER 17: Some Archaeological Observations

§ 191

The name Pelasger, undoubtedly connected with Pelagus, is the general description for the small isolated Asiatic tribes who were supplanted and dispersed, and were the first to reach Europe, where they soon entirely forgot their native culture, tradition, and religion. On the other hand, favourably influenced by a fine and temperate climate and good soil as also by the many coasts of Greece and Asia Minor, they attained, under the name of the Hellenes, a perfectly natural evolution and purely human culture whose perfection has never occurred elsewhere. Accordingly, they had nothing but a half-comic, childlike religion; seriousness took refuge in the Mysteries and the tragedy. To that Greek nation alone are we indebted for a correct interpretation and natural presentation of the human form and features, for the discovery of the only correct and regular proportions of architecture, fixed by them for all time, for the development of all genuine forms of poetry together with the invention of really beautiful metres, for the establishment of philosophical systems in all the main directions of human thought, for the elements of mathematics, for the foundations of a rational legislation, and generally for the normal presentation of a truly fine and noble human existence. For this select little people of the Muses and Graces was, so to speak, endowed with an instinct for beauty which extended to everything, to faces, forms, postures, dress, weapons, buildings, vessels, implements, utensils, and so forth, and never on any occasion forsook them. We shall, therefore, always be remote from the canons of good taste and beauty to the extent that we remove ourselves from the influence of the Greeks, especially in sculpture and architecture. The ancients will never become obsolete; they are and remain the lodestar for all our efforts, whether in literature or the plastic arts, and we must never lose sight of this. Discredit and disgrace await the age that dares to set aside the ancients. If, therefore, some perverted, wretched, and materially minded 'modern age' [1] should desert the ancient school in order to feel more at ease in its overweening presumption, then it is sowing the seeds of ignomy and dishonour.

We may possibly characterize the spirit qf the ancients by saying that, as a rule, they tried in all things to keep as near as possible to nature; whereas the spirit of modern times might be characterized as an attempt to get as far from her as possible. Consider the dress, customs, implements, dwellings, vessels, art, religion, and mode of life of the ancients and of the moderns.

On the other hand, the Greeks are far behind us in mechanical and technical arts as well as in all branches of natural science, for such things require time, patience, method, and experience rather than high intellectual powers. And so from most of the works on natural science by the ancients there is little we can learn except to realize what they did not know. Whoever wants to know how incredibly ignorant in physics and physiology the ancients were, should read the Problemata Aristotelis; they are a real specimen ignorantiae veterum. [2] It is true that the problems are often correctly, and sometimes cleverly, conceived, but the solutions are for the most part pathetic because he knows no elements of explanation except always [x]. [3]

Like the ancient Germans, the Greeks were a race which had immigrated from Asia into Europe, a nomadic tribe; and, remote from their native lands, both educated themselves entirely from their own resources. But see what the Greeks became and what the ancient Germans! Just compare, for example, their mythologies; for the Greeks later established their poetry and philosophy on their mythology; their first teachers were the ancient minstrels Orpheus, Musaeus, Amphion, Linus, and finally Homer. Then came the Seven Wise Men and finally the philosophers. Thus the Greeks, so to speak, went through the three classes of their school; there is no mention of such a thing among the ancient Germans before the migration.

No ancient German literature, or Nibelungen, or other poets of the Middle Ages should be taught in German gymnasia. It is true that these things are well worth noting and reading, but they do not contribute to the cultivation of taste and take up time that should be devoted to ancient and really classical literature. Now, my noble German patriots, if you put ancient German doggerel in place of Greek and Roman classics, you will rear none but lazy and idle loungers. To compare these Nibelungen with the Iliad is rank blasphemy from which the ears of youth, more than anything else, should be spared.

§ 192

The Ode of Orpheus in the First Book of the Eclogues of Stobaeus is Indian pantheism, playfully embellished by the plastic sense of the Greeks. It is, of course, not by Orpheus, yet it is old; for a part of it is already mentioned in the pseudo- Aristotelean De mundo, a book that has recently been attributed to Chrysippus. It might well be based on something genuinely Orphean; in fact one feels tempted to regard it as a document of the transition of Indian religion to Hellenistic polytheism. In any case, we can take it as an antidote to the much-lauded hymn of Cleanthes to Zeus, which is given in the same book and has an unmistakable Jewish odour, and thus gives so much pleasure. I can never believe that Cleanthes, a Stoic and so a pantheist, made this nauseous adulation, but suspect that the author was some Alexandrian Jew. At all events, it is not right so to misuse the name of the son of Kronos.

Clotho, Lachesis, and Atropos express the same fundamental idea as Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva; but this idea is too natural for us to have to infer for that reason a historical relationship.

§ 193

In Homer the many phrases, metaphors, similes, and expressions, occurring without end, are inserted so stiffly, rigidly, and mechanically, as though this had been done by routine and rule of thumb.

§ 194

The fact that poetry is older than prose, since Pherecydes was the first to write philosophy and Hecataeus of Miletus * the first to write history in prose, and that this was regarded by the ancients as a memorable occasion, may be explained as follows. Before men wrote at all, they tried to perpetuate, unadulterated, facts and ideas worth preserving by recording them in verse. Now when they began to write, it was natural for them to put down everything in verse, for they simply did not know that memorable occasions were preserved in any other way than in verse. Those first prose-writers departed from this as from something that had become superfluous.

§ 194a

Freemasonry is the sole vestige, or rather analogue, of the Mysteries of the Greeks. Admission into it is the [x] [4] and the [x]; [5] what is learnt are the [x], [6] and the different degrees are the [x]. [7] Such analogy is neither accidental nor hereditary, but is due to the thing springing from human nature. With the Mohammedans Sufism is an analogue of the Mysteries. As the Romans had no Mysteries of their own, people were initiated into those of foreign gods, especially of Isis, whose religious cult reached Rome at an early date.

§ 195

Our clothes have a certain influence on almost all our attitudes, gestures, and bearing. The ancients were not similarly influenced by theirs, for they were probably induced, in keeping with their aesthetic sense, by the feeling of such a drawback to keep their clothing loose and not tight-fitting. For this reason, when an actor wears an antique costume, he has to avoid all the movements and attitudes which are in any way caused by our clothes and have then become a habit. There is, therefore, no need for him to assume an air of puffed-up pomposity, as does a French buffoon when playing his Racine in toga and tunic.

_______________

Notes:

1 (Schopenhauer uses the cacophonous word Jetztzeit, which he often condemns.]

2 ['Specimen of the ignorance of the ancients'.]

3 ['Hot and cold, dry and moist'.]

* Herodotus mentions him in another connection, VI. 137.

4 ['To be initiated'.]

5 ['Initiations'; 'mystic rites'.]

6 [' Mysteries'.]

7 [' Small, greater, and greatest mysteries'.]
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36180
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Parerga and Paralipomena: Short Philosophical Essays

Postby admin » Thu Feb 01, 2018 8:38 pm

CHAPTER 18: Some Mythological Observations

§ 196

It may be a consequence of the primary and original relationship of all the beings of this phenomenal world by means of their unity in the thing-in-itself; at all events, it is a fact that collectively they bear a similar type and, in the case of all of them, certain laws are laid down as the same, if only in a general way they are adequately comprehended. From this it is easy to see that not only the most heterogeneous things can be mutually explained or made clear, but also striking allegories are found even in descriptions where they were not intended. Goethe's incomparably beautiful tale of the green serpent affords us an exquisite example of this. Every reader feels almost compelled to look for an allegorical meaning to it. And so immediately after the tale was published, this was undertaken most seriously and zealously and in many different ways, to the great amusement of the poet who, in this instance, had had no allegory in mind. An account of this is found in the Studien zu Goethes Werken, 1849 by Duntzer. Moreover, this was known to me long ago through personal statements from Goethe. The fable of Aesop owes its origin to that universal analogy and typical identity of things, and it is due to this that the historical can become allegorical and the allegorical historical.

More than anything else, however, the mythology of the Greeks has from the earliest times provided material for allegorical explanations and interpretations. For it invites one to this by furnishing patterns for the graphic demonstration of practically every fundamental idea. In fact it contains to a certain extent the archetypes of all things and relations which, precisely as such, always and everywhere make their appearance. It has originated actually from the playful urge of the Greeks to personify everything; and so even in the earliest times, in fact by Hesiod himself, those myths were interpreted allegorically. For instance, it is simply a moral allegory when he enumerates (Theogony, II. 211 ff.) the children of night and shortly afterwards (II. 226 ff.) those of Eris, namely effort, exertion, injury, [1] hunger, pain, conflict, murder, quarrelling, lying, injustice, dishonesty, harm, and the oath. Again, his description of personified night and day, of sleep and death, is physical allegory (II. 746-65).

For every cosmological, and even metaphysical, system it will be possible, for the reason stated, to find in mythology an allegory. In general we have to regard most myths as the expressions of truths that are dimly divined rather than of those that are clearly conceived. For those early and original Greeks were just like Goethe in his youth; they were absolutely incapable of expressing their ideas except in metaphors and similes. On the other hand, I must dismiss with Aristotle's rebuff: [x] (sed ea, quae mythice blaterantur, non est operae pretium serio et accurate considerare), [2] Metaphysics, II. 4, the serious and laboured explanation, worked out by Creuzer with endless prolixity and tormenting tedium and verbosity, that mythology is the depository of physical and metaphysical truths which have been intentionally stored therein. But here Aristotle also appears as the very opposite of Plato who likes to concern himself with myths, yet in an allegorical way.

And so the following attempts of mine at allegorical interpretations of a few Greek myths may be taken in the sense I have explained.

§ 197

In the first great fundamental characteristics of the system of the gods, we can see an allegory of the highest ontological and cosmological principles. Uranus is space, the first condition of all that exists and hence the first procreator with Gaea, the bearer of things. Kronos is time. He enfeebles and emasculates the procreative principle; time annihilates every procreative force or, more precisely, the capacity to produce new forms; the primary generation of living species ceases after the first world-period. Zeus, who is withdrawn from the voracity of his father, is matter; it alone eludes the mighty force of time which destroys all else; it persists and is permanent. But from it all things proceed; Zeus is the father of gods and men.

Now for some more detail: Uranus does not allow the children he has begotten with mother earth to see the light, but conceals them in the bowels of the earth (Hesiod, Theogony, II.156 ff.). This may be applied to nature's first animal products which we come across only in the fossil state. But in the bones of the megatheria and mastodons we can just as well see the giants whom Zeus had hurled down into the underworld; in fact even in the eighteenth century it was said that in them the bones of the fallen angels were recognized. But there actually seems to underlie the Theogony of Hesiod an obscure notion of the first changes of the globe and of the conflict between the oxydized surface capable of life and the ungovernable forces of nature that are driven by it into the interior and control the oxydizable substances.

Further, Kronos, the crafty and wily, [x] emasculates Uranus through cunning. This may be interpreted by saying that time, which steals over and gets the better of everything, and secretly takes away from us one thing after another, finally deprived even heaven, which with mother earth, i.e. with nature, created things, of the power originally to produce new forms. But those already created continue to exist as species in time. Kronos, however, swallows up his own children; as time no longer produces species, but turns out merely individuals, she gives birth simply to mortal beings. Zeus alone escapes from this fate; matter is permanent. But at the same time, heroes and sages are immortal. The following is a more detailed sequence of the foregoing events. After heaven and earth, i.e. nature, have lost their power of original creation which produced new forms, such power is transformed to Aphrodite who springs from the foam of Uranus's amputated genitals that had fallen into the sea and who is just the sexual production of mere individuals for the maintenance of existing species; since now new ones can no longer come into existence. For this purpose, Eros and Himeros arise as the aider and abettor of Aphrodite (Theogony, II.173-201).

§ 198

The connection, indeed the unity, of human nature with animals and the rest of nature, and consequently of the microcosm with the macrocosm, is expressed in the puzzling and mysterious sphinx, the centaurs, the Ephesian Artemis with the many different animal forms placed under her innumerable breasts, just as it is seen also in the Egyptian figures with human bodies and animal heads, and in the Indian Ganesha. Finally, we see it also in the Ninevitical bulls and lions with human heads which remind us of the Avatar as man-lion.

§ 199

The Iapetides exhibit the four basic qualities of human character together with their attendant sufferings. Atlas, the patient one, must bear. Menoetius, the valiant one, is overpowered and hurled to perdition. Prometheus, the prudent and clever one, is put in chains, in other words, is impeded in his activity, and the vulture, i.e. sorrow, gnaws at his heart. Epimetheus, the thoughtless and heedless one, is punished by his own folly.

Human foresight is quite properly personified in Prometheus, the thought for the morrow, an advantage that man has over the animal. Therefore Prometheus has the gift of prophecy; it signifies the ability to show prudence and foresight. He thus grants to man the use of fire which no animal has, and lays the foundation for the arts of life. But man must atone for this privilege of foresight by the incessant torment of care and anxiety, which to the animal is unknown. This is the vulture gnawing at the liver of the shackled Prometheus. Epimetheus, who is afterwards created as a corollary, represents anxiety and worry after the event, the reward of frivolity and thoughtlessness.

Plotinus (Enneads, iv, lib. I, c. 14) gives us an entirely different interpretation of Prometheus, which is metaphysical yet full of meaning. Prometheus is the world-soul, makes man, and thus himself falls into bonds that only a Hercules can loosen, and so forth.

Again, the enemies of the Church in our times would be pleased with the following interpretation. [x], [3] is the faculty of reason which is shackled by the gods (religion); only by the downfall of Zeus can it be liberated.

§ 200

The fable of Pandora has never been clear to me; in fact it has always seemed to me to be absurd and preposterous. I suspect that it was misunderstood and distorted even by Hesiod himself. As her name already implies, Pandora has in her box not all the evils, but all the blessings, of the world. When Epimetheus hastily opens it, all the blessings fly out, all except hope which is saved and left behind for us. In the end, I had the satisfaction of finding a couple of passages of the ancients which accord with this view of mine, namely an epigram in the anthology (Delectus epigrammatum graecorum, edited by Jacobs, c. 7, ep. 84), and a passage of Babrius quoted there which begins with the words: [x]. [4] (Babrius, Fabulae, 58.1.)

§ 201

The particular epithet [x], [5] attributed by Hesiod to the Hesperides in two passages of his Theogony (11.275 and 518), together with their name and their stay that was so long deferred after evening, has suggested to me the notion, certainly very strange, that bats might be meant by the name Hesperides. Thus such an epithet answers very well to the short whistling tone of these animals.* Moreover, it would be more appropriate to call them [x] [6] than [x], [7] as they fly about much more in the evening than at night, for they go out in search of insects, and [x] is the exact equivalent of the Latin vespertiliones. [8] I was, therefore, reluctant to suppress the idea, for it might be possible that, by having his attention drawn to it in this way, someone may still find something to confirm it. Indeed if the cherubim are winged oxen, why should the Hesperides not be bats? Perhaps they are Alcithoe and her sisters who were changed into bats. (See Ovid's Metamorphoses, IV. 391 ff.)

§ 202

The nocturnal studies of scholars may be the reason why the owl is the bird of Athena.

§ 203

It is not without reason and sense that the myth represents Kronos as devouring and digesting stones; for it is time alone that digests the otherwise wholly indigestible, all grief, vexation, loss, and mortification.

§ 203a

The overthrow of the Titans, whom Zeus thundered down into the underworld, seems to be the same story as that of the downfall of the angels who rebelled against Jehovah.

The story of Idomeneus who sacrifices his son ex voto [9] and that of Jephthah are essentially the same.

(Typhon and Python are probably the same, since Horus and Apollo are the same, Herodotus, lib. II, c. 144.)

Just as in Sanskrit there are to be found the roots of the Gothic and Greek languages, is there perhaps an older mythology whence both the Greek and Jewish mythologies have sprung? If we wanted to give free play to our wit, we might even mention that the doubly long night, when with Alcmene Zeus begat Hercules, arose from the fact that, farther east, Joshua commanded the sun to stand still before Jericho. Zeus and Jehovah played so much into each other's hands; for the gods of heaven, like those on earth, are at all times secretly on friendly terms. But how innocent was the amusement of Father Zeus in comparison with the bloodthirsty deeds of Jehovah and his chosen predatory people!

§ 204

Thus in conclusion, I put my very subtle and exceedingly odd allegorical interpretation of a well-known myth that has been immortalized especially by Apuleius, although, on account of its subject-matter, such interpretation is open to the ridicule of all who wish to avail themselves of the expression du sublime au ridicule il n'y a qu'un pas. [10]

From the culminating point of my philosophy, well known as the standpoint of asceticism, the affirmation of the will-to-live is seen to be concentrated in the act of procreation, which is its most decided expression. Now the significance of this affirmation is really that the will, originally without knowledge and hence a blind urge, does not in its willing and passion allow itself to be disturbed or restrained after knowledge of its own true nature has dawned on it through the world as representation. On the contrary, it now wills, consciously and deliberately, precisely what it hitherto willed as an urge and impulse devoid of knowledge. (See World as Will and Representation, vol. i, § 54.) Accordingly, we now find that the ascetic, who denies life through voluntary chastity, differs empirically from the one who, through the act of procreation, affirms life, in that, with the former, there occurs without knowledge and as a blind physiological function, namely in sleep, that which is consciously and deliberately performed by the latter and, therefore, is done with the light of knowledge. Now it is in fact very remarkable that this abstract philosopheme, which is in no way associated with the spirit of the Greeks, and the empirical circumstances illustrating it, have their exact allegorical description in the beautiful fable of Psyche who was to enjoy Amor only without seeing him, yet who, dissatisfied with this, positively wanted to see him, regardless of all warnings. In this way, after an inevitable pronouncement of mysterious forces, she came to endless misery which could be expiated only through her wandering into the underworld and there carrying out difficult and arduous tasks.

_______________

Notes:

1 According to my own conjecture, I read [x] [maltreatment] instead of [x] [forgetfulness].

2 ['As far as mythical drivel is concerned, it is not worth while seriously to consider it.']

3 ['Prometheus in chains'.]

* [x]. Herodotus, IV. 183. ['To squeak; they squeak like bats.']

4 ['Zeus collecting in a vessel all the good things ...']

5 ['Clear-voiced', 'screaming'.]

6 ['Daughters of the evening', 'Hesperides'.]

7 ['Daughters of the night', 'bats'.]

8 ['Bats'.]

9 ['In consequence of a vow'.]

10 ['From the sublime to the ridiculous is but a step.']
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36180
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

PreviousNext

Return to Ancien Regime

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 68 guests